BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?

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: Amos
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 09:38 AM

Hey, what's the difference? All a warmonger needs is a candidate to attack.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Wesley S
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 09:54 AM

Iran - logistically it will be more cost effective. Bush's CEO's - I mean Cabinet - will point that out to him. They may need a map to prove it.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 09:55 AM

France, hopefully.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Rapparee
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 10:00 AM

Why not both?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: saulgoldie
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 11:02 AM

We will, of course need a draft to provide the troops necessary. And also, of course, any monies that may by some remote chance have found their way to social programs will have to be done away with. G-d help us. G-d help the world.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,Larry K
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 11:04 AM

I vote for France.    I think that would restore Bush to his 70% popularity numbers.   Does anyone in the USA besides John Kerry like France?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: mack/misophist
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 11:13 AM

Given Rumsfeld's tactical and strategic skills, Korea is the natural choice. We're not bankrupt yet, but we will be.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,Desdemona
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 11:14 AM

Oh, yeah, someone's gonna get the crap "liberated" out of them, whether they like it or not!

D

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,Skipy
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 11:14 AM

Why not wipe out France & use it as a spring board to Iran?

Skipy

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 11:22 AM

I don't think we'll invade any more countries on the second watch. Bush will be forced to misgovern differently this time around. All depends on whether he chooses to cut and run in Iraq after the January elections, but hang onto the oil fields.

Of course, the way things are going, he'd need all 140,000 troops currently in country (including the newest member of our family by marriage, who our niece married just before he shipped out) just to guard the oil fields from the insurgents.

No, what frightens me in terms of our foreign policy is both the nuclear capabilities of North Korea and Iran and the piss poor way the Bush administration has handled it, and my fear that Nigeria will be next. The Bush empire wouldn't need nearly as many forces to takeover Nigeria.

But there are rays of hope. Latin America seems to be turning left in some of the bigger countries. Let us hope they can unite and stand strong against the crush of the global capitalist imperialist scourge.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,Skippy
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 10:13 PM

I think a Democracy on both sides of Iran will take the wind out of their sails.

If we suck up to China they will put the muscle on N Korea.

China is growing more democratic every day due to their economic boom. (Part of the reason oil is so high)

With a semi-Demorcatic China to the north and a real Democracy to the south. North Korea will melt.
Skipp

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 10:24 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,Fat Albert
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 10:42 PM

basically okay
Tell us how you know this.

Do the escapees that float up on the Florida beaches (the ones that get by the sharks) say they were "basically OK" but they suddenly got a hankering for a Big Mac and some fries?

hey hey hey

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 11:24 PM

Problem with Bush's 1st term is that he has shot his wad! He knows it. Iran certainly knows it... N. Korea knows it...

In choosing to attack Irag he has spread the military so thin that it is very apparent to everyone...

I guess he wasn't planning on a second terms or maybe he would have waited to see if any real enemies were out to get us...

Too late now... No more wars unless we're outright attacked...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 11:34 PM

Did you know that people in every single Latin American country are perishing to get into the USA? Did you know that there are millions of Mexicans, Guatemalans, Hondurans, Costa Ricans, Chileans, etc...who want to get into the USA just as badly as Cubans do or moreso? If Mexico was across the straits from Florida it would make the Cuban boat people look like a small picnic outing, my friend.

And did you know that every Cuban has free modern medical care and a roof over his head and safe streets and a job and nice clothing and all the basic necessities of life...while the poor in all those other Latin American countries live in poverty and misery beyond imagining (if you haven't seen it)?

I've been to Cuba. I've seen it. I see fewer cops on the street in Cuba than in Canada, and I see safe streets at night in Cuba and lots of lively social life on those streets after dark. In Mexico you can see paramilitary police with machine guns slouching around. They are the next thing to armed brigands, and you can lose your life if you wander around carelessly in Mexico. Mexicans and most other Latin Americans have far more reason to escape to North America than Cubans do, but Mexico is an ally and business partner of the USA, because they play ball with big American companies and enslave their own people to those companies.

Explain that, Fat Albert. You can be willfully blind if you look at a forest and see only the birch trees, because someone told you that there is no other kind of tree than a birch tree. That's what you're doing with regard to Cuban boat people.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,Fat Albert
Date: 04 Nov 04 - 11:08 AM

free modern medical care
Modern Medical care cannot be bought at any price in Cuba.
People have to be evacuated to another country to get modern health care.

safe streets
The police fire at will at anybody suspected of anything with no regard to innocent bystanders. People have to duck and run for cover.

basic necessities of life
Air and water are free.

a roof over his head a crumbling roof.

Did you notice that the people there have to refer to Castro by stroking an imaginary beard?

Are you Fidel's spokesman? Why don't you live in this utopia?

Hey Hey Hey

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 04 Nov 04 - 11:35 AM

I agree with Bobert both in the prediction and the reasons for it. I hope you are right this time, Bobert, for that's the only good news I expect from Bush's government in the next four years.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: MarkS
Date: 04 Nov 04 - 11:50 AM

Hey all - be nice to the French.

After all, they will always be there when they need us.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Nov 04 - 12:55 PM

We're not allowed say Fr*nch yet (we have to say "freedom" instead). Not for another four years, anyway. Too bad, really. I was practicing saying it on the 2nd, just in case Kerry won.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Nov 04 - 01:53 PM

Fat Albert, you obviously have not been to Cuba. I and hundreds of thousands of other Canadians have. I have walked the streets of Cardenas, not a tourist town. No big hotels in Cardenas. I have also been to Mexico and seen how the poor live there. Cuba is immeasurable more responsible to its people.

Here is today's news from Guatemala, taken directly from my Rogers Homepage, news section. I quote:

"GUATEMALA CITY (Reuters) - The United States issued a serious security warning for Guatemala on Wednesday after a series of attacks on U.S. citizens in the Central American nation, including the rapes of children.   

A statement from the U.S. Embassy said there have been three serious assaults on U.S. citizens in 10 days. In two of them minors were raped.

The statement did not come with a recommendation to avoid travel to Guatemala, which is battling a surge of violent crime. Buses and trucks are frequently held up in broad daylight.

In some of the cases, the attackers wore police uniforms and used police-like vehicles to trick their victims into stopping, the embassy said.

It was not clear if the attackers were police, although the embassy statement said police might have been involved in some of the attacks. The embassy declined to give further details.

While the vast majority of victims are Guatemalan, the embassy registers attacks against hundreds of U.S. tourists every year and is concerned that criminal activity is on the increase.

In recent months, high-ranking officers in Guatemala's notoriously corrupt police force have been suspended for alleged involvement in gangs dedicated to kidnapping and assault.

Several members of the office for professional responsibility, whose duty is to monitor police behavior, were recently fired for alleged corruption.

"We are retraining the remaining personnel, so that they work against the bad police," police spokesman Oscar Piveral said.




That's Guatemala, another US ally and business partner. Guatemala is a country that was savaged in the 80's by CIA-trained and funded death squads who terrorized the populace and massacred anyone who stood up for political and social freedoms. You now see the result of that policy.

Your ideas about Cuba are a schoolboy fantasy picked up from God knows where. I have met any number of highly educated Cubans and ordinary working class Cubans. They live in a country that has the best literacy rate in Latin America, a better infant survival rate than the USA, totally free and modern medical care, totally free and good education right to the completion of university, and safe streets. Much safer than Miami or Washington, D.C., I can tell you.

You just keep repeating the myths and lies you've been told, Albert, and I'm sure you will keep believing them. They are supported by your stark ignorance of the real World that exists outside the USA.

I already live in a good country, pal. It's called Canada. If I was born Cuban I'd be mighty proud to live there too. They have held off a superpower for over 40 years now, and that's nothing short of a miracle.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Bert
Date: 04 Nov 04 - 09:59 PM

Iran.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Cluin
Date: 04 Nov 04 - 10:15 PM

Iran. All y'all got an old score t' settle thyar. Then when yuh got all them camel jockey towelheads straightened out, that when yuh kin turn yer `tenshun to the heathen Chinee.



Seriously, there's a bit of a mess in Iraq to clean up first. Not to mention Afganistan. Remember that little romp?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: DougR
Date: 04 Nov 04 - 10:20 PM

Geeze, Amos, you write a post that indicates that you are going into seclusion, ostensibly to lick your wounds, and here you are again, spouting your venom about the newly elected president! What happened to your theory that whowever wins by the popular vote is the duly elected president? Does that only apply to candidates that you support?

Anyway, it would seemly for you to contemplate a bit longer than twenty-four hours if you truly were going to follow what you posted.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Shanghaiceltic
Date: 04 Nov 04 - 10:33 PM

China is not growing more democratic. It gives the world outside an impression it it but there are deep deep problems here at present. Many riots in many cities mainly caused by the poorer people and peasant farmers objecting the only way they can when they see the corruption at all levels of government.

The Chinese press is told not to report and they obey. Thanks god for the international press and the South China Morning Post an HK published daily whose reporters are regulalry harrassed by the mainland authorities.

However its a mei ban fa situtation (nothing to be done) and GW has to work with the Chinese.

I would suggest that GWB stays out of North Korea and let the Chinese deal with it. They cut off oil supplies last year to N Korea which brought the Koreans back to the table.

If GW decided to ignore advice on N Korea and invade or take military action then the consequences in this part of the world would be very bad indeed.

Added to which the China - Taiwan situation is not a good one and GW could find himself drawn into that too.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Nov 04 - 10:35 PM

Hey, why Iran or N. Korea when ya got the northeast and west coast? Take out New York and California and the Repubs won't ever swaet anothe day in their lives...

And Dougie. Leave Amos alone 'er I'll get on you like ugly on a Southern redneck Repubs. And I mean it... Grrrrrrr....

Awwwww, jus' messin'. Them newly elected Southern Repub Senators ain't rednecks at all. Redneck would seem far to the left of where these Grand Wizzards are from...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Nov 04 - 10:37 PM

DougR, Amos posted to this thread at 9:38 AM yesterday. He started his going away for a while thread at 10:01 AM yesterday. You can tell time, right?

(Just in case you can't, 10:01 AM is after 9:38 AM.)

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Nov 04 - 10:49 PM

LOL! Oh, jeez....

Shanghaiceltic - Good post about China! Well said. That is a government I trust even less than I do the Bush administration, and that's really saying something. The Chinese government is coldly pragmatic and capable of anything in my opinion. This in no way indicates any lack of respect on my part for the Chinese people, who are a brilliant people. They deserve better than what history has handed them.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,Fat Albert
Date: 05 Nov 04 - 09:07 AM

schoolboy fantasy picked up from God knows where
Heard first hand from someone who lives there. Not just from a tourist that see all the good stuff.

"Of course, not everyone in Cuba receives substandard health care. In fact, senior Cuban Communist Party officials and those who can pay in hard currency can get first-rate medical services any time they want."
http://www.canfnet.org/Issues/medicalapartheid.htm

"When we meet in May for a drink on Obispo Street, changes surround us. A nightclub around the corner, El Bohemio, has been closed. Police stand outside in larger numbers. Even the bar's usual hipster jazz band is gone. In their place stand five older Cubans who, according to the bartender, "played in the cemetery before coming here." It turns out we were lucky to have music at all: I later learn that most of the young, talented bands can no longer play in the bars, for reasons unknown."
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1568/is_4_35/ai_105644258/pg_3

"We are not free, he says. "Listen to me when I tell you that."
http://www.cubanet.org/CNews/y03/sep03/22e5.htm

"The residential housing crisis in Cuba is common knowledge: crumbling properties, crowding, and constant subdivision of limited space. The Castro government has also created a legal mishmash of competing claims by following diverse internal policies, some of which supposedly granted a murky title to housing. It has also used housing grants as a reward for loyalty. If we add the prior owners' confiscation claims, and take a purely legalistic approach, there is no question that lawyers can be kept busy for decades while real estate deteriorates and collapses."
http://www.futurodecuba.org/Dynamic%20Solution%20March%205%202004.htm


Hey Hey Hey

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,Larry K
Date: 05 Nov 04 - 09:28 AM

Only a Canadian would think that Cuba has a high quality of life.   When the NBA played some exhibition games over there, the universal remarks from players were about proverty and gruesome conditions.   This from people who for the most part grew up in the low income areas, and gettos in the USA. The NBA players couldn't believe how bad the poverty was in Cuba compared to USA.

People in Cuba try to float Chevys across shark infested waters to get to the USA.    When I cross the border to Mexico, they just wave to you as you drive by.   The good news is you don't have to sneak into Canada.   They let anybody in.   All you have to do is claim political assylum- you don't even need ID.

The only reason the Cuban economy has not collapsed is that Cuban relatives in the USA keep sending them money.    The largest industry in Cuban malls is the American money cashing stores.    Without this funding, Cuba would be finished as an economy.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Dead Horse
Date: 05 Nov 04 - 12:09 PM

It has to be Iran because Korea dont have no oil.
And just because France was right all along, dont mean we have to bomb the b*ggers!

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Zelda_K
Date: 05 Nov 04 - 06:59 PM

They can not even handle the situation in Iraq, so how would they invade even more countries?
North-Corea has nukes and mighty neighbours (China & Russia).
France has a modern army, nukes and allies.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Cluin
Date: 05 Nov 04 - 08:52 PM

It's gonna be somebody, right? The US gets a Republican president in and within 6 months, they're getting ready to drop bombs on somebody.

Why? Nothing rallies support like being a wartime president and pointing fingers at a new boogeyman... some kind of "ism" to wage war against.

Oh and please don't say you already have a war. Bush declared that one "over" last year.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Padre
Date: 05 Nov 04 - 09:32 PM

Korea is my vote.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,Davey
Date: 05 Nov 04 - 09:41 PM

Ain't no Al Kider in Korea. Git-R-Done in Iran fust.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Nov 04 - 09:54 PM

Fine, guys. We've both talked to real Cubans and we got totally different stories from them. I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I didn't do the tourist thing when I was in Cardenas. I stayed at a church community in the middle of downtown Cardenas, with very poor people living right around it on all sides. I met some of the finest people I've ever met in my life there. Some of them were middle class. Others were very poor. I talked with a number of young musicians. They reminded me of myself when I was in my 20's. Our translator was a very smart, well-educated, presentable guy who knows perfectly well that he could come to North America and soon be earning a hundred times what he does in Cuba. He wants to stay there because he believes in his society. He came up to Canada last summer and visited for 6 weeks in my town, and enjoyed himself immensely, but was happy to return to Cuba at the end of the visit. He showed no desire to "escape" to "the good life" here.   I heard many different opinions when I was in Cuba, some pro-government, some opposed to Castro. About a 50/50 divide on that, in fact. The Cubans struck me as a remarkably well-adjusted, idealistic people, and I had about the best time there I ever had anywhere, among ordinary Cubans, not in a hotel with tourists. I was not, in fact, a tourist at all in the usual sense. I was there for spiritual reasons and I learned a lot.

Still, my low opinion of China's government, at least, should give you some comfort, I hope!

Now, moving on...here's a quote about the possible next country on the hit list:

"In August of 2002, Defense Policy Board chairman and PNAC member Richard Perle heard a policy briefing from a think tank associated with the Rand Corporation. According to the Washington Post and The Nation, the final slide of this presentation described "Iraq as the tactical pivot, Saudi Arabia as the strategic pivot, and Egypt as the prize" in a war that would purportedly be about ridding the world of Saddam Hussein's weapons. Bush has deployed massive forces into the Mideast region, while simultaneously engaging American forces in the Philippines and playing nuclear chicken with North Korea. Somewhere in all this lurks at least one of the "major
theater wars" desired by the September 2000 PNAC report.

Iraq is but the beginning, a pretense for a wider conflict. Donald Kagan, a central member of PNAC, sees America establishing permanent military bases in Iraq after the war. This is purportedly a measure to defend the peace in the Middle East, and to make sure the oil flows. The nations in that region, however, will see this for what it is: a jump-off point for American forces to invade any nation in that region they choose to. The American people, anxiously awaiting some sort of exit plan after America defeats Iraq, will see too late that no exit is planned.

All of the horses are traveling together at speed here. The defense
contractors who sup on American tax revenue will be handsomely paid for arming this new American empire. The corporations that own the news media will sell this eternal war at a profit, as viewership goes through the stratosphere when there is combat to be shown. Those within the administration who believe that the defense of Israel is contingent upon laying waste to every possible aggressor in the region will have their dreams fulfilled. The PNAC men who wish for a global Pax Americana at gunpoint will see their plans unfold. Through it all, the bankrollers from the WTO and the IMF will be able to dictate financial terms to the entire planet. This last aspect of the plan is pivotal, and is best described in the newly revised version of Greg Palast's masterpiece, "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy."

The rest can be found on this website:

Project for a New American Century

Now if those plans go ahead, as described, into Saudi Arabia and Egypt, the USA will soon find itself surprised to be embroiled in a Third World War, and they won't be fighting pathetic little foes like Iraq, Saudia Arabia, and such...they will be fighting a consortium of modern nations who are just as good at high technology as American is, and were once America's allies...a long time ago...before this latest round of empire-building madness began.

You can go just so far, and no farther in a community of nations, as Mussolini and Hitler discovered, as Napoleon discovered. People will fight when you go too far, and they will find the means to.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Nov 04 - 10:31 PM

I have got to introduce you to Shane, Davey. You guys would really click, know what I'm sayin'?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 05 Nov 04 - 10:44 PM

Why bother with North Korea? They will get the squeeze from China and Russia.

Iran is setting itself up to be squeezed by China and Russia, as well but Iran has oil to offer so they will profit from the sudden interest from both countries. It will also keep the U.S. at bay.

No, the U.S. will concentrate on Iraq and Afghanistan. They'll be there for years insuring that there is a 'fair and democratic' voting process while privatizing everything they can get their hands on.

d

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,Nimby
Date: 05 Nov 04 - 11:00 PM

The way I see it is that America is hungry for oil, not the government of America.

At the same time the American tree huggers don't want the US to utilize it's own natural resources.

Sheeeit! How is anybody going to satisfy both selfish factions?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Bobert
Date: 05 Nov 04 - 11:57 PM

No takers on New England???

You all is way too global fir me...

I mean, think gobal, act local, right???

Nuke Boston!!!

They ain't got no nukes to fire back atcha...

Korea? Different story. Iran? Maybe different story...

Like I said, nuke Boston!!!

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Ebbie
Date: 06 Nov 04 - 03:36 PM

DougR, Amos mentioned 'warmongers'. Whatever makes you think that he was referring to Dubya?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Nov 04 - 05:09 PM

Those are hardly the only two choices, NIMBY. In fact, the two examples you've given have nothing whatever to do with each other. Tree huggers are protesting the harvesting of old growth trees. It is most emphatically not necessary to harvest old growth trees in order for us to have anything at all that we need. There are so many other ways to provide what we need that don't involved harvesting old growth forests.

Oil has many alternatives as well. The idea that we have to make a choice between having our energy and material needs met, and killing for oil and despoiling the enviornment is false. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Shanghaiceltic
Date: 06 Nov 04 - 06:57 PM

All those AK47's you see being toted in the many areas of conflict? Where are most of them made now. Here. Ditto rocket launchers.

The Chinese also have nuclear weapons both strategic and battlefield.

The PLA (Peoples Liberation Army) though is badly trained, but lack of training is made up in numbers.

So we have a country that supplies technology to N Korea, weapons to the rest of the world, yet squeals when Taiwan wants to buy defence weapons. However GW must be as pragmatic as the Chinese Govt are and deal with each other. But there is oil and gas here so he might reconsider ;-)

BTW I just saw on the news that China is voting in the UN to leave Iran's nuclear program alone. I wonder if the technology they have in Iran has Made in China on it.....

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 06 Nov 04 - 07:06 PM

China most definitely supports Iran - they also want Iran's oil.

d

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,Dorothy
Date: 06 Nov 04 - 10:00 PM

D:

You mean China is trying to screw another country out of it's oil?

Only the US has the right to do that.

Dot

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Nov 04 - 10:04 PM

dianavan, where are you getting your information about China, Russia, and Iran? I haven't seen anything about it in the US media (big surprise).

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 06 Nov 04 - 10:26 PM

China recently signed a trade agreement with Iran and Russia has agreed to dispense of Iran's nuclear waste. Sounds pretty cozy to me. Google Iran - new.

d

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Nov 04 - 10:33 PM

Thanks dianavan.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 16 Feb 05 - 11:47 AM

I guess I'm not the only one who found today's succession of news reports in Iran TV very peculiar. The news so far came in this order:

(1) There was a hugh explosion near the Iranian town of Dailam.
(2) The explosion came from a rocket fired from a plane (with eyewitness interviews).
(3) The explosion came from an empty plane tank falling down.
(4) It was a controlled explosion for a dam project.
(5) There was no explosion at all.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Feb 05 - 02:30 PM

If it's Cuba, I suppose they could extend the regime currently found in Guantanamo to cover the whole island. That's liberation for you.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Feb 05 - 09:37 PM

Yes, one wonders. I have the impression that the USA is scoping out Iran very carefully indeed, using spy drones, satellites, and whatever else comes to hand...and they're probably doing it in preparation for a forthcoming attack on Iran. They are now perfectly positioned to hit Iran from both sides (Iraq and Afghanistan) and from their ships in the Gulf. I think they will find it hard to resist, given the opportunity, so they will be looking for excuses and provocations.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Peace
Date: 17 Feb 05 - 01:37 AM

Y'all might want to give this link a very good look-see. Iran is a very different animal from Iraq. Very different. Pay close attention please to the geography section on the link--specifically elevation extremes. Iran would do to the USA what Afghanistan did to the old USSR. Very bad move, IMO. Logistics are a nightmare.

HERE

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Peace
Date: 17 Feb 05 - 01:41 AM

http://www.gospatial.com/ProductImages/I-MID-011.jpg

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 17 Feb 05 - 03:29 AM

You're right about that brucie!

Not only that, the Iranian people might not like the current government but they hate the U.S. even more.

Now that Iran and Syria have formed a defensive alliance, the U.S. had better not do something stupid AGAIN!

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Feb 05 - 05:45 AM

In the event of an attack on Iran, it is pretty evident that holding down Iraq would be even more of a problem, with the Shi'ite majority, and the Shi'ite dominated government bitterly hostile.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,Davetnova
Date: 17 Feb 05 - 06:06 AM

They'll go for Iran. Koreas safe cause they can hit back. Bullies don't like that.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,Giok
Date: 17 Feb 05 - 06:23 AM

It's evident from the behaviour of the present US administration that they don't understand Middle East politics. They seem to think that if the population of a country is unhappy with their government, it means that they want America to intervene, whereas the majority of them would rather put up with the Saddam Husseins of this world than have the US infidels in their country.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Feb 05 - 07:14 AM

I feel rather suspicious about this assassination in Lebanon which is being blamed on Syria? And its timing. (And don't anyone sound off about "conspiracy theories" - by definition any assassination pretty well has to be a conspiracy, it's just a matter of who is conspiring, and why.)

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,Wolfgang
Date: 17 Feb 05 - 08:09 AM

Anti-Syrian protests of mourners (Guardian) remind us that not only the Iraq is an occupied country in the Near-East.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,Giok
Date: 17 Feb 05 - 09:03 AM

Beirut and the Lebanon should in itself be an object lesson to GWB, it has gone from being a beautiful prosperous city to what it now is, in a series of political and religious wars and occupations. Democracy doesn't seem to have offered any answers there, and it won't in Iraq.
How can a country which has such a corrupt, and only titular democracy itself, hold their system up as an example to others? How many people were disenfranchised in Florida 4 years ago, how many bills were passed or vetoed due to pressure by big business contributors to political funds.
'The People have Spoken' is crap, only money talks, in this as in so many other so called democracies, and that definitely includes this bunch of spin merchants in the UK.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: DougR
Date: 17 Feb 05 - 10:36 PM

Glockamorra.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Kaleea
Date: 17 Feb 05 - 11:46 PM

Too bad that dubblepew bush has ignored the real threat of terrorists & attacked ol' saddumm sadsack insane stead. Now, the terrorists & guerillas from all over the world are banding together which is much worse than the jihaad was before dubblepew was placed in office. Of course, he had to make sure that the family oil business got their oil, not to mention the veep, as the vice pres is also a texas oilman-despite the location of his so called residence as of late--just ask anyone in the oil business.
    We are very fortunate that China talked n. korea down from pushing the "red button" on us, because that is exactly what was getting ready to happen as that dictator is as bad or worse than dubblepew. China didn't want all out bloody hell war in their backyard to screw up shipping lanes in the region from another conflict from N Korea & the USA, as China has it's entire economy wrapped up in exports to the USA.
    I suppose, then, that since dubblepew already has waged war in Iraq, the next place is right next door.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Peace
Date: 18 Feb 05 - 01:16 AM

?????

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: DougR
Date: 18 Feb 05 - 01:36 PM

Monaco?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Peace
Date: 18 Feb 05 - 05:02 PM

I think two things will happen:

1) The US will try to destabilize Iran; cause internal strife.

2) The US will bargain with Korea.

Regardless of the military might of the USA, it does NOT have the legs to fight major wars in two places without resorting to the use of nuclear weapons. I am not aware whether or not the US still has submarine-launched cruise missiles or MIRV capability from undersea boats. If so, then neither country poses a 'problem' with regard to the US being able to hit targets. However, Korea does have a nuclear capability--and they would have the will to use it. Ground-based troops are OK on the ground, but they don't do a heckuva lot for you when your enemy can bomb you from air, sea and beneath the ocean surface. Which war will be next will be determined in rooms by military academics based on information as to the enemy's will to fight--and the numbers in which that enemy is willing to expend its population. Neither scenario will be good at this time. In five years? That's another ballgame.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Feb 05 - 05:15 PM

But the main target he has in mind for eliminating is the USA. I mean, those aspects of the USA that are really worth admiring, and really being proud of.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Donuel
Date: 18 Feb 05 - 06:15 PM

Oldies but prophetic goodies

The endless war (until the oil is gone)

http://www.angelfire.com/md2/customviolins/assaulton.jpg


"found on a PNAC laptop"

http://www.angelfire.com/md2/customviolins/mideastnew2.jpg

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Apr 05 - 03:30 AM

Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, an influential former Iranian president preparing to run again in June, said Tehran was determined to embark on uranium enrichment and other branches of nuclear technology.

"And we will have it at any cost," he told worshippers in Tehran.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/04/29/iran.nuclear.reut/index.html

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: robomatic
Date: 30 Apr 05 - 01:48 PM

The only thing that can stop Iran from going nuclear is Iran.

If done properly and with the cooperation of China and S. Korea, taking out that pr*ck Kim Jong Il would be a plus for humanity.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST
Date: 01 May 05 - 08:33 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/05/01/northkorea.missile/index.html

note:

"Last week, U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency Director Lowell Jacoby testified on Capitol Hill that, according to a U.S. assessment, North Korea has the capacity to arm a missile with a nuclear device and hit U.S. territory.

Such a "two-stage" missile is "assessed to be within their capacity," Jacoby said in response to a question from Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, a New York Democrat.

The Pentagon later argued that Jacoby was not stating new information but only reiterating his previous statements that North Korea has a "theoretical capability to produce a warhead and mate it with a missile."

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Peace
Date: 01 May 05 - 08:40 PM

"taking out that pr*ck Kim Jong Il would be a plus for humanity."

Restaurant or movie?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST
Date: 01 May 05 - 08:49 PM

so, brucie, which would you prefer-

removing Kim Jong II ( one life, with a few thousand guards) or 200,000+ american civilians and most of the North Koreans in the world ( after a nuclear exchange)?

Just looking at possibilities...

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 May 05 - 09:36 PM

Well? What would Canada do?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 May 05 - 09:49 PM

Canada would offer to share donuts and coffee at Tim Horton's. :D That's what I would do too. Makes more sense than attempting to cow people with death threats, if you ask me.

Anyway, I thought it was illegal to issue death threats...

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 May 05 - 09:51 PM

LH,

Canada was in N. Korea before. If the cease-fire fails, what would you recommend the UN forces do?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Peace
Date: 04 May 05 - 10:24 PM

"Well? What would Canada do?"

We'd sell 'em asbestos and kill 'em that way.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 May 05 - 10:40 PM

I am sure you would- but that does not solve the problem. Obviously, whatever the US does is wrong- But I am giving you the chance to go on-record with what should be done.... and accept the responsibility if it is tried, and fails.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 May 05 - 10:43 PM

Just because you believe it's true doesn't make it true.
Just because your motives are pure doesn't mean you are not doing harm.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Peace
Date: 04 May 05 - 10:44 PM

I am giving YOU the opportunity to tell us all what YOU think.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Peace
Date: 04 May 05 - 10:48 PM

Here is from the C in C of the USA: "What I am against is quotas. I am against hard quotas, quotas they basically delineate based upon whatever. However they delineate, quotas, I think, vulcanize society. So I don't know how that fits into what everybody else is saying, their relative positions, but that's my position."

Folks, it doesn't get any clearer than that.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 May 05 - 10:49 PM

brucie,

How cute and original....

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Peace
Date: 04 May 05 - 10:53 PM

No thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: DougR
Date: 05 May 05 - 01:14 AM

Take your pick! If either of them prove to be a threat to our freedom, and are attacked because of it, you will benefit from not being attacked by a nuclear weapon from either, and still be able to bitch because you were not incinerated.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 05 May 05 - 01:28 AM

I think Canada should feed the Koreans our beef and sell them our lumber. I think we should cultivate Korea as a trading partner. We could sell them asbestos and uranium, too. They could help us keep the U.S. in their place.

In the meantime, Iran should start developing their nuclear capabilities so that they can defend themselves and their resources.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,brucie
Date: 05 May 05 - 12:02 PM

Doug,

You ain't makin' a whole helluva lot more sense than your friend there. Course, maybe his views have got to be more rational in the past day. I've given up reading them. I'm about to give up reading yours, too.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,CarolC
Date: 05 May 05 - 12:44 PM

From what I'm seeing in the US media right now, it looks like they're also softening us up for an assault on Sudan. However, which one they go for first, Iran, Korea, or Sudan, is not something I'm going to speculate on just yet.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Peace
Date: 05 May 05 - 02:38 PM

Sudan for sure. Logistics, IMO.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 May 05 - 02:40 PM

Why Sudan? The UN is taking such good care of things there....

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,CarolC
Date: 05 May 05 - 03:16 PM

I guess they figure the time is right, beardedbruce. Most of the people have been cleared from the land by the government of Sudan and the Janjaweed, and now the US can swoop in for the kill (and take control of the oil) with a minimum amount of effort and expense, now that others have done most of the dirty work for them.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 05 May 05 - 08:49 PM

the real question isnt whos next, as it is very unlikely the US
has anymore spare forces, without bringing in a draft -but rather
how high is the Mogadishu line - ie. the number of US casualties the American public is willing to accept for an optional war.

Certainly the value has gone up since 911 but its unlikely that it would be in the 10s of thousands.

BUsh had to scrape the barrel to maintain troop level in Iraq,without
bringing in a draft prior to the election. There will be no invasions of any other countries on the second watch.

Whats interesting about Irans nuclear ambition is how it is perceived in the US media. Iran has some semblance of Democracy, far more than China and yet there are no real concerns about Chinas nuclear ability.

Or is it the fact that America is nervous about an Islamic state getting a hold of nuclear weapons? Thats also unlikely as no one seems to worry about Pakistan. And yet, Pakistans AQ Khan had a network which traded missile technology with Korea in exchange for nuclear weapon technology, as well as an underground nuclear market.

What happened to AQ Khan, he was put under house arrest by Musharraf
and promptly pardoned, and American intelligence never even had a chance to interview him. THis makes Saddams imagined wmds look more like sunday school.

What about bringing democracy to the rest of the world? Well its not up to America to force it on people, there have been at least 16non-violent revolutions in the last 20years, starting with the Phillipines, .. INdonesia, Georgia, etc. and the US had nothing to do with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 05 May 05 - 09:02 PM

there have been at least 16non-violent revolutions in the last 20years, starting with the Phillipines, .. INdonesia, Georgia, etc. and the US had nothing to do with it

I wouldn't bet on that.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Shanghaiceltic
Date: 05 May 05 - 09:14 PM

There are hard rumours here that N Korea is just about ready to test a bomb.

If that happens then maybe China will act in a harder manner to bring the N Koreans to the negotiating table. China does not want a nuclear capable neighbour right on its own borders.

The Chinese Govt and the US Govt would have to work along with the South Koreans and the Japanese.

Problem there is that the US has declared (along with Japan) support for Taiwan should the Chinese try and take it by force.

China is having a spat with Japan at present over natural resources, territorial disputes in the S China Sea and Japan seeking a seat on the UN Security Council. The riots in China over the last few weeks against Japanese business's were govt approved and used the excuse of history books used in Japan's schools to whip up Chinese nationalists.

The lid has been put back on that one for a while as the govt started to worry about the riots getting out of hand.

So we have four countries, all of which distrust each other, to try and bring the N Korean's back into line. Not a good start.

If, and I do not think it will happen, the US launches a strike on N Korea then I dread to think what will happen. Bringing down the North Korean Govt could lead to even more instability in a country where military rule has prevaled for over 50 years.

GWB should leave Iran to be dealt with by the Europeans, the Iranians totally distrust any of the US motives. The European countries are trading partners with Iran and hold a few more cards than does the US.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,Petr
Date: 06 May 05 - 02:07 PM

Carolc, do you believe the US may have been behind the Aquino revolution in the Phillippines, not bloody likely, considering how cozy Reagan was with Marcos. When the communist regimes fell in Eastern Europe, the US inteligence community was caught by surprise, its still widely regarded as a major inteligence failure, just like 911. So they didnt have much to do with it and what might come as a surprise to most Americans, the US is not needed to spread democracy.


here's Bush take on US spreading of Democracy..

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 May 05 - 02:19 PM

In fact the US was dead against having the election in Iraq at first, and had to back down and allow it. Here's a piece by Noam Chomsky that provides a different angle on it from the mainstream media."...finally the US (and UK, trailing obediently behind) had no recourse but to allow an election�and of course, the doctrinal system went into high gear to present it as a US initiative, once it could no longer be avoided."

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 06 May 05 - 02:38 PM

Carolc, do you believe the US may have been behind the Aquino revolution in the Phillippines, not bloody likely, considering how cozy Reagan was with Marcos.

No, I wasn't specifically suggesting that the US had anything to do with this one.

When the communist regimes fell in Eastern Europe, the US inteligence community was caught by surprise, its still widely regarded as a major inteligence failure, just like 911. So they didnt have much to do with it

I wouldn't bet on that one. And I wouldn't necessarily call what the former Soviet Union has now as "democracy". I tend to think that had the US not interfered as much as it did in the politics of that region, Gorbachev might have been able to usher in a true democracy in what is now the former Soviet Union, rather than the cronyistic cleptocracy that they have now, with organized crime running the show.

what might come as a surprise to most Americans, the US is not needed to spread democracy.

The US government is not in any way attempting to spread democracy. All they really want is compliant puppet regimes and client states that will secure the oil and give them unfettered access to their natural resources, permission to build military bases, and a balance of power that keeps the US in a position of global supremacy.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: robomatic
Date: 06 May 05 - 03:19 PM

Today's New York Times has an article regarding Shanghaiceltic's mention of rumors. Something is going on over there, but it's kind of hard to tell just what with that incredible regime.

N. Korea may be preparing N-Test

According to the article, the US is warning the bordering countries to buckle down a bit. If there is a test, one imporant thing will be to get air samples which will tell a lot about what kind of technology they have.

I sure hope someone is vacuuming A Q Khan (in Pakistan) of all the information he gave to variouis parties. He's a one man cataclysm.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Peace
Date: 06 May 05 - 07:52 PM

Few hours old.

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_7-5-2005_pg7_57

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Peace
Date: 06 May 05 - 10:48 PM

http://www.guardian.co.uk/korea/article/0,2763,1478641,00.html

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Peace
Date: 07 May 05 - 02:13 AM

May 7 update.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Shanghaiceltic
Date: 07 May 05 - 06:28 PM

Thanks for the links Brucie.

Not a comfortable situation. China provides oil and gas to N KOrea and the year before last turned off the supplies for a month which resulted in the N Koreans coming back to the table.

I have not travelled to N Korea but several friends of mine have. They were looking at potential business oportunities, which did not pan out as the people they were dealing with were hard line Koreans and wanted a lot for nothing. A bit similar to the negotiations so far.

What they did say was that it was very eerie, they were not allowed out unescorted, they were restricted in what they could photograph and they could not talk to anyone on the street without prior approval.

They visited one primary school where they were greeted with a little song and dance routine by 6 year old about how N Korea would destroy the US and anyone who opposed it.

If the kids are brainwashed just think how the adults behave. This country is probably one of the most dangerous in the world but containing it is not a straightforward issue to say the least.

In the meantime the Chinese authorities continue to 'repatriate' escapees from the North on the grounds they are economic migrants. I guess this is being done so to keep dialogue open with the N Koreans. It would seem even the Chinese deal with them with kid gloves.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Peace
Date: 07 May 05 - 06:34 PM

About two years back I sent an e-mail to the CIA suggesting that the easiest way to calm North Korea down would be to lend South Korea a dozen missiles with nuclear tips. Then tell the North that ANY launch would occasion a reciprocal launch from the South. Never heard back.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 May 05 - 07:37 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/05/09/north.korea/index.html

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 May 05 - 10:38 PM

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7792877/

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 May 05 - 05:59 AM

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/05/15/nuclear.iran.reut/index.html

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 01 Jun 05 - 05:12 PM

Makes Ballistic Missile Breakthrough

A defence ministry statement said the new technology could be built into Iran's Shahab-3 missiles (pictured) - which the Islamic says already has a range of at least 2,000 kilometres (1,280 miles).
Tehran (AFP) May 31, 2005
Iran announced Tuesday it had successfully tested a new solid fuel motor for its arsenal of medium-range ballistic missiles, a technological breakthrough that sparked fresh alarm in Israel.
"The test was a success," Defence Minister Ali Shamkhani said on state television.

"When you fill a missile with liquid fuel, you have to use it quickly. With solid fuel, a missile can be stored for years. And in addition, it makes the missile more accurate and cheaper too."

A defence ministry statement said the new technology could be built into Iran's Shahab-3 missiles - which the Islamic says already has a range of at least 2,000 kilometres (1,280 miles).

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/iran-05p.html

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 01 Jun 05 - 05:15 PM

and for those who don't read the article, here is the end of it...


"Iran is trying to develop a nuclear weapon and is developing its vectors to this end. Its ballistic missiles do not only threaten Israel: they can also be turned on Europe," he added.

Iran insists it is not seeking to develop missiles with a longer range than the Shahab-3, and has denied allegations that it is seeking to develop nuclear weapons.

The country says its missiles will only be tipped with conventional warheads.

But many are not convinced: as one Western diplomat in Iran has remarked, "why develop a Rolls-Royce to only deliver a pizza?"

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Jun 05 - 05:46 PM

Unfortunately, in todays political climate , having nuclear weapons seems to be the only way of avoiding attack, especially if you are Islamic or have oil reserves.

Having no weapons at all seems to guarantee invasion,as your country is seen as an easy target.

The only way round this problem is to pretend to have weapons, but that didn't work in the case of the Saddam regime.                American intelligence was just too good....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: robomatic
Date: 01 Jun 05 - 06:38 PM

I think a nuclear Iran is a fact of life at this point in time. But Iran is a vastly different set of circumstances as compared to N. Korea.

The subject came up in the end of season Simpsons episode when Homer wondered where Bart would be sent.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Jun 05 - 09:34 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/06/15/iran.nuclear.reut/index.html

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Jun 05 - 12:58 PM

Forget about Iran and Korea. It's Canada that's next! Why? Because of Canadian beaver pelts. Bush is obsessed with taking over all the beaver in Canada, and he will stop at nothing. He is a madman who MUST be stopped! Enough is enough.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Jun 05 - 01:05 PM

Bush is obsessed with taking over all the beaver in Canada

Too many possibilities for response here, LH. Too many possibilities.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Jun 05 - 01:08 PM

Well, Mr Bush is clearly a megalomaniac with delusions of grandeur. Others have tried to control all the beaver in Canada, and died trying. I seriously doubt that George Bush will succeed in this nefarious plan.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Shanghaiceltic
Date: 16 Jun 05 - 07:28 PM

I thought that was Clinton's perogative, that and Cuban cigars.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Jun 05 - 08:32 PM

Clinton was unquestionably a force to be reckoned with. No doubt about it. But he was so likeable...

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Jun 05 - 10:06 PM

Others have tried to control all the beaver in Canada, and died trying.

With a smile on their faces, no doubt.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Jun 05 - 10:26 PM

LOLOLOLOL!!!!

The perfect response, Carol. Now I can go to bed with a smile on my face. G'night, folks!

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Jun 05 - 03:53 AM

What about the corrupt government in the USA. Lets invade that for a regime change. Holding hostages and torturing them!

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Jun 05 - 07:32 AM

Yes, Washington is the number one place where regime change is needed at the moment.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,Allen
Date: 17 Jun 05 - 03:09 PM

Lichtenstein.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Aug 05 - 03:20 PM

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-08-08-iran-nuclear_x.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,Blind DRunk in Blind River
Date: 09 Aug 05 - 12:09 AM

I'll tell ya who is flippin' next...Quebec, that's who. Them flippin' frogs can't be trusted! They are out to take over the whole flippin' continant, one peice at a time. That's why I hadda take French in school. My French was so flippin' bad that it made my teacher, Miss Robitaille, cry one time! I felt kinda bad about that, but she shoulda known better than to try and teach French to a McBride, eh? Good flippin' luck!

- BDiBR (Shane)

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,Mrs Olive Whatnoll
Date: 09 Aug 05 - 05:23 PM

If it was up to me we'd tyke out bofe Iran AND Korea wifout furtehr delay. Blast 'em to kingdom come I says! And then we'd tyke out Blind fecking River! Cor! Wot a lot of stupid gits must live there, judging by the rubbish wot BDiBR spews all the time. 'E's a useless layabout wot should be frown into jail again and LEFT there! It's a shame that Austrylia is not a penile colony loik it once was because if it was then we could send the young sot there and put 'im to work bustin' up rocks till 'e learns to mind 'is manners.

- Olive Whatnoll

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Aug 05 - 04:51 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/08/11/iran.iaea/index.html

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,Blind DRunk in Blind River
Date: 11 Aug 05 - 07:14 PM

Olive Flippin' Whatnoll! A friend told me you was bad-mothin' me here. Well you can go FLIP yourself sideways down a minedshaft, eh? There ain't no one else who will! You are the worst flippin' thing I ever seen or heard of yet. You are sooo flippin' ugly that it goes way past what words could ever flippin'even say! You suck majorly. You are lower than a flippin' lampree. You are the flippin' Nitemare on Elm STtreet come to life! You take skankdom to a hole new flippin' level that would scare most men shitless. No guy that was anyways conshus would even ThINK about makin' moves on you, Olive, cos you are the flippin' nightmare from HeLL! Your husband has to be one of 2 things, eh? A totall nutcase or the worlds' biggest flippin' loser who could not find even a DOG that would give him the time of day! You twist the flippin' fabbric of time and, like, space itno some kind of horrible flippin' aborshun that would freeze the blood of a space vampire. Ozzie Osbourne would cross the street to flippin' avoid lookin' at YOUR UGLY face. You ain't even human. You are some kind of flippin' demon that popped outa the pit, know'm sayin'?

You just try takin' out Blind River, Olive! Go ahead. Make my flippin' day. We have pest exterminators here, eh? We don't tolarate vermin like you. So don't flippin' try it!

- BDiBR

p.s. Kiss the glove, you flippin' mega-skank!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Aug 05 - 07:20 PM

Ballistic missile tensions in the Middle East rose significantly this week when Iran's Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani announced Wednesday that his country had succeeded in developing solid fuel technology for ballistic missiles.
"We have fully achieved proficiency in solid-fuel technology in producing missiles," he said.

That means Israel's densely populated coastal strip around and north of the city of Tel Aviv -- containing 70 percent of the country's population and 80 percent of its capital infrastructure -- which could be wiped out by a single nuclear strike, is vastly more vulnerable.

Solid-fueled missiles can be launched with almost no warning, far more quickly and reliably than liquid fueled ones and they are far more accurate.

Iran's intermediate range ballistic missile, the Shahab-3 has a range of 800 miles to 1,000 miles, allowing it to reach Israel.

The Shahab-3 was successfully tested in 2002. it is operated by Iran's hard-line Revolutionary Guards.

http://www.spacewar.com/news/iran-05zm.html






But of course they only want it for peaceful purposes.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Aug 05 - 07:21 PM

http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/Iran/Missile/3367_3395.html

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Aug 05 - 07:23 PM

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iran/missile/shahab-3.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Aug 05 - 07:25 PM

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iran/index.html


http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iran/index.html


Read, and make up your own mind...

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Peace
Date: 11 Aug 05 - 07:32 PM

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1436082/posts

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Oct 05 - 03:09 PM

In his book, Freeh writes that he realized the United States was in a global war with terrorists after the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center and responses to terrorist attacks in the 1990s were inadequate.

"We lacked the political will, the spine, to take military action against our enemies," he told CBS. "It was obvious for years that that's what our position had been."

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/10/freeh.clinton/index.html

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Donuel
Date: 11 Oct 05 - 11:40 AM

Robertson caused an uproar in August when he called during his televised religious program for the US government to assassinate Chavez. He later was forced to to apologize to the leftist leader.

But the conservative preacher issued a new denunciation of Chavez Sunday.

"The truth is, this man is setting up a Marxist-type dictatorship in Venezuela, he's trying to spread Marxism throughout South America, he's negotiating with the Iranians to get nuclear material and he also sent 1.2 million dollars in cash to Osama bin Laden right after 9/11," Robertson told

"I apologized and I said I will be praying for him, but one day we will be staring at nuclear weapons and it won't be (Hurricane) Katrina facing New Orleans, it's going to be a Venezuelan nuke," Robertson said.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 05:09 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/11/11/iran.nuclear.reut/index.html

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 07:02 PM

I gather that you are saying that it's Iran next, and not Korea, BB...

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 09:12 PM

So dianavan,

Propounder of cuddly thoughts and peace throughout the world. Please clearly and categorically state that:

You would prefer it that Saddam Hussein was still in power in Iraq with all the ramifications that that would have had on Iraq's poor benighted populace.

AND

That you are definitely infavour of the UN and all other countries in the world scrapping the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

Now you should have no trouble agreeing to this request, you have stated as much in your posts to date.

ALL WE REQUIRE IS THAT YOU CLEARLY STATE SO.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 09:23 PM

Mars!

Not only do they have their WMDs so well hidden we can't find them, we can't even find the Martians! They obviously constitute a grave danger!

(And I'm pretty suspiciousl of the Amish, too!)

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 09:27 PM

I can understand your concerns, Don. The Amish are very worrisome. Their very peacefullness makes them suspect, in my opinion. What do you figure they've really got in those grain silos?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 10:41 PM

Its not a matter of preferring Saddam, its a matter of making sure you have the support of the U.N. and other member nations before you decide to 'go it alone'.

Either you abide by international treaties or you don't. Once the U.S. decides that the rules do not apply to them, everyone has to look after themselves. If that means seeking other trading partners, so be it. We win, you lose.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 07:05 PM

Eh Dianavan,

The MNF are in Iraq with the blessing of the UN, in fact their mandate was extended, by the UN, until the end of 2006 on the 9th of this month. Check it out with the UN, I know that this might slightly piss on your parade but then, what the hell, you can't have everything.

Noted that you didn't answer the questions asked - just evaded them as usual - you appear to condemn the USA for ignoring international rules and obligations and applaud Iran for doing the same thing. There appears to be a lack of consistancy there, not unusual in those whose leanings politically are left wing and totally anti-American.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Ebbie
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 07:46 PM

Wait a cotton pickin' minute- I can't let that pass about the Amish. Their silos are filled to the brim - yes. But in due time they will tell you with what.

The Amish make up all kinds of stories about themselves and their place in the world.

Once an Amish farmer was hauled into court to testify on someone's behalf. He was called to the front and told to raise his right hand and swear. He said, No, no. I can't swear.

The judge said severely, Mr. Yoder, you HAVE to swear. Bailiff, proceed.

The farmer said, Do I have to? Do I have to swear?

Yes, said the Judge.

The farmer heaved a big sigh and said, OK. Helly, helly, damn.

Ya can't leave for a dang minute.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,Buffy
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 02:34 AM

LH:

You don't know fuck about Cuba. All you see as a tourist is what they want you to see.

I have a relative that lives there off and on. He can tell you some tails.
Like for instance the rice farmers have to spread their crop out along the side of the road to dry it in the sun. When you buy rice there you have to spread it out on the kitchen table and pick out all the dirt, rocks, bugs, twigs and grass before you cook it.
Hungry now?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Bobert
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 09:36 PM

Ahhhh, like I siad on another thread, yeah, I'd rather have Saddam in power in Iraq than the mess we have now... Iraq has been completely destabilized by Bush's ill-thought-out rush to invade... He ignored those within the intellegnce communtity who felt that Iraq din't have WMD's... He ignored the fact that Hans Blix said the inspectors wetre given access purdy much to wherever that wanted to inspect.... Yeah, he invaded Iraq-mire and now look what we have!!! A complete civil war in Iraq-mire and we're in the middle of it...

Hey, fir about the ten thousanth time, my question to the Bush apologists is, "Hey, if Bush wanted Saddams head, why didn't he send some folks to get it???"

You know, I've asked that question so many times its now rediculous... And I have never gotten so much as an acknowledgment that the question has been on the table now pushing 3 years??? Like what's that about???

Well, I'll tell ya...

The Bush apologists haven't recieved their offical answer from their fearless leaders PR department so they ignore it like it was pit of radiation...

Normal, fir them...

Yeah, once they get their marching orders they are fine, fine, fine but without any orders they are like fish outta water...

And now that the Bush apologists have blood on their hands they are a bit touchy, to boot...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Peace
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 09:45 PM

"I'd rather have Saddam in power in Iraq than the mess we have now"

I'd rather that Hussein had received a bullet in the brain two decades ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 11:48 PM

teribus - The UN have extended the mandate of the multinational force, because at this point, it would be all out civil war in the Middle East if the U.S. were to abandon their committments to Iraq and pull out immediately. One important point - THE MULTINATIONAL FORCE IS THERE AT THE REQUEST OF THE IRAQI GOVERNMENT.

The U.N., "...adopted a resolution extending the mandate of the multinational force in Iraq until the end of next year and allowing for a review of that mandate at any time, no later than mid-June 2006, or for its termination, at the request of the Iraqi Government."

It might have been a different story if the request had come from the U.S. so I don't think thats much of a blessing, do you?

As it is, looks like the U.S. may not be able to hold down their end of the bargain, especially since so many allies are pulling their troops. Here's my question, if the U.S. and Britain are so almighty, why can't they stabilize the region?

Seems pretty obvious to me that the U.S. and British invasion has created instability throughout the middle east, not just Iraq. Please tell me that democracy has brought peace and stability. I haven't seen that myself. I think most people are tired of living on a promise that seems more and more like a dirty little lie.

I do not recall applauding Iran or any other country for ignoring international rules and obligations. But, heh, if you really want to go there, when will the U.S. pay Canada the softwood money they owe us according to NAFTA?

The good ol' United States of Hypocracy and the British Emporer who wore no clothes.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 03:30 AM

Not sure what point you are trying to make dianavan (13 Nov 05 - 11:48 PM)

"One important point - THE MULTINATIONAL FORCE IS THERE AT THE REQUEST OF THE IRAQI GOVERNMENT.

The U.N., "...adopted a resolution extending the mandate of the multinational force in Iraq until the end of next year and allowing for a review of that mandate at any time, no later than mid-June 2006, or for its termination, at the request of the Iraqi Government."

It might have been a different story if the request had come from the U.S. so I don't think thats much of a blessing, do you?"

What request are you saying should have come from the US? Are you saying that the ultimate decision whether or not the MNF remains in Iraq should be taken by somebody other than the elected Government of Iraq?

The MNF is definitely present in Iraq at the request of the interim Iraqi Government, and will, in all probability, remain there for some time at the request of the elected Iraqi Government after 15th December this year. They are definitely there with the blessing of the UNSC, because if they weren't the UN would have the job dumped in their laps and at present the UN are to busy doing nothing about situations in Sudan (Darfur) and along the Ethiopian/Eritrean border to have to bother with doing nothing in Iraq.

I believe if you check through your posts you will find that to Iran in particular and to all other nations in the world you advocate the pursuit and acquisition of nuclear weapons as quickly as posible.

With regard to Bobert's question regarding the possible assassination of Saddam Hussein. Bobert is wrong his question has been answered many many times - He just didn't like the answers. But one more time: The assassination of Saddam Hussein would have accomplished absolutely nothing, it would not have changed the regime in power in Iraq, it could possibly have made matters worse in as much that Saddam would have been replaced by one of his sons, who were reportedly much worse that Saddam. Pointers to the likelyhood of that answer panning out as stated - look what happened in Syria when old man Assad died - did the Ba'athist Party remain in power (YES) did they cast round the loyal party members and make a list of potential candidates to take up the Presidency, or did they just hand it over to Assad's son (They did the latter)

On the benefits, if anyone cares to look at the numbers of suicide bombings in Israel in the four years prior to March 2003 and the number of incidents since you will find a marked reduction - anything to do with the ending of Saddam's funding and severe curtailing of support being received from Syria? The end of Syria's occupation of the Lebanon. Libyan renunciation of their WMD programme.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 07:39 AM

Bobert,

"the Bush apologists have blood on their hands"

IMO, it is those anti-war folks who protested US enforcement of the UN resolutions and did NOT demand that Saddam comply who have the blood on their hands. Shall I call them Saddam apologists?


Peace,

Total agreement on that.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 28 Nov 05 - 12:26 AM

Who's Next?
Iran or Korea?


Neither:       Azerbaijan.

Lots of oil there and the U.S. ally has recently been accused of attacking its citizens for protesting fraudulent elections.

Sounds like a perfect set-up for the U.S. military machine and Bush. Right between Iraq and Russia and very, very oil rich.

Time to depose another dictator. Thats why they're building all those bases in Iraq. Iraq is just a staging area.

Much easier to tackle Azerbaijan than Korea or Iran and far more profitable.

From the Guardian:
"http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1652164,00.html

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: leftydee
Date: 28 Nov 05 - 11:55 AM

I say "watch out' to whom ever on the never-ending list of enemies appears weakest the next time The Bushies need a distraction. This is the way of bullies. The raising of the terror alert to cover their tracks is a policy they won't forget.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Dec 05 - 03:16 PM

Defense News 12/16/05
By Agence France-Presse, Berlin

Iran has bought 18 BM-25 missiles from North Korea which the Islamic Republic wants to transform to extend their range, the German press reported Dec 16. "Iran has bought 18 disassmbled BM-25 missiles from North Korea with a range of 2500 kilometers ( 1553 miles)," Bild newspaper said, citing a report from German secret services.

It added that Iran's ultra-conservative President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wants to have the range of the missiles "extended to 3500 kilometers". The newspaper said that until now Iran only had Shehab-3 missiles with a range of 1300 kilometers.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Lepus Rex
Date: 21 Dec 05 - 09:18 PM

I wouldn't worry about Azerbaijan, dianavan. (Or Iran, actually. Or North Korea. But I'll stick to Azerbaijan, here.) Absolutely no chance of a US invasion there, no matter how corrupt and brutal the Azeri leaders, and no matter how flawed their elections. The Aliyev Dynasty is decidedly secular, and Azerbaijan is by far the most secular of all Shi'a nations, so, no possible "war on terror" connections. And, as you mentioned, the US has generally cosy relations with Azerbaijan. The US desperately wants to keep the secularists in power, as the main alternative would be the Iranian-backed Islamists. Yeah, yeah: I know they made the mistake of toppling a secular government in Iraq, with predictable consequences. But even if he wanted to invade Azerbaijan, Bush couldn't just pull an invasion out of his ass in the next three years, especially with the ongoing debacles in Iraq and Afghanistan.

And, of course, there's the matter of Azerbaijan's neighbours:

Turkey shares ethnic and political ties with Azerbaijan, both being secular, Turkic nations whose people speak, basically, the same language. The two nations have their differences, but Turkey would, at the very least, strongly oppose an invasion of Azerbaijan, and definately deny the use of its land and airspace to American troops. At worst, an invasion could cause the two Turkic nations to unite, cause a schism within NATO, etc. And, of course, this would all involve Europe, as well.

And Iran, which has ethnic (about one quarter of Iranians are Azeri Turks, and Iran is home to the vast majority of the worlds Azeris) and religious (Shi'a) ties to Azerbaijan, would become involved, as well. And... well, I said I wouldn't go into Iran here, but just let me say that an American war against Iran would be utterly unwinnable. And with Christian Americans swarming over the place, Iranian and native-born Islamists would find even more fertile grounds than at present in Azerbaijan. The only result would be defeat for the Americans, and the creation of another Islamic Republic (like Iran, and, soon, Iraq).

And, perhaps most importantly, Russia would surely become involved if the United States were to invade its "Near Abroad." Even as toothless and weak as Russia is, there's no way the US would directly challenge it like that. But, just for fun, let's say the US invaded, Russia did nothing, and my Iranian scenario played out: Azerbaijan's population is radicalised, and Islamists take control. Russia would never tolerate the presence of such a nation on its borders, or, more specifically, on the Daghestani border. Afghanistan, Chechnya, Azerbaijan... Fun! :)

So, yeah, never, fucking ever gonna happen. Absolute fantasy. Bleh.

---Lepus Rex

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 03:22 AM

That was very informative.

A very good explanation (analysis)

...and besides that, it looks like the U.S. will occupy Iraq for a long time to come.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 05:11 AM

Good post Lepus,

I worked out in Azebaijan for a while, on the initial collapse of the USSR, the place got it's independence. Russia immediately regretted letting this happen, as you stated in their post the Russians are extremely sensitive about what occurs in that region. In the lead up to the final withdrawal of Soviet rule from Azerbaijan the KGB suppression of riots and civil unrest was brutal in the extreme. The founder of " The Aliyev Dynasty" mentioned by Lepus was the officer commanding the KGB in Azerbaijan at the time. He has since died and his son has taken over, having just "won" election in a vote that has been vigorously contested by the opposition.

There is an ongoing dispute between all the Caspian countries regarding offshore oil and gas exploration and extraction.

Initial fears of foreign investors related to something mentioned by Lepus, there are many times more Azeri's in Iran than there are in Azerbaijan, the fear was that fundamentalist Iran would win over the Azeri population of Azerbaijan. In fact as things turned out, all indications were that the reverse would be true, that secular and rapidly developing Azerbaijan would act as a magnet to repressed and frustrated Azeri's in Iran.

I agree with Lepus, Azerbaijan is in no danger of attack by the US. The main threat to the secular state of Azerbaijan comes from how quickly it's own rulers can downstream the developing wealth of the country to benefit the general population.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,AR282
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 05:59 PM

We won't attack anybody because we no longer have the resources to do so. I guess that is one thing we can thank Bush for.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Jan 06 - 05:51 PM

TEHRAN, Iran -    Iran removed U.N. seals on uranium enrichment equipment and resumed nuclear research Tuesday, defying demands it maintain a two-year freeze on its nuclear program and sparking an outcry from the United States and Europe

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060110/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_nuclear

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Jan 06 - 06:16 PM

I saw an article a few days ago that said Iran had permission from the IAEA to break those seals. I'll see if I can find it.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Jan 06 - 06:49 PM

Clinton Hammond is next. Mark my words. The man is intolerant, insufferable, intolerable, and simply detestable...and he kills innocent skunks. A surgical strike will be required, using some device such as...a stink bomb loaded with skunk oil, strapped to the nose of an MX missile tipped with a 700 megaton bag of shit. That oughta do it fine. Avoid his next few gigs. In fact, avoid downtown Windsor altogether, I'd say...but I always say that. ;-)

Other than that, my next best guess is still Iran at this point.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Jan 06 - 07:22 PM

CarolC,

"German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier questioned whether European-led negotiations had any future and said Iran had "crossed lines which it knew would not remain without consequences." He said he had asked ElBaradei to quickly evaluate the dangers of Iran's move.

Britain warned the international community was "running out of patience," and Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said Tehran had breached IAEA resolutions. "There was no good reason why Iran should have taken this step if its intentions are truly peaceful," Straw said.

Japan said the decision was "a matter of deep regret" and the Foreign Ministry called on Iran "to immediately cease the resumption of the research and development activities."

Iran's decision to freeze some nuclear activities in October 2003 was voluntary, so the IAEA said it had no option but to remove the seals at Iran's request.

The move further erodes the suspension of nuclear activities that has been the centerpiece of Iran's negotiations with the West since the freeze was put in place as a confidence-building measure.

In August, Iran removed seals at another nuclear plant outside the city of Isfahan and resumed uranium reprocessing — a step before enrichment in the nuclear fuel process.

That move prompted Europe to break off its negotiations temporarily. The talks that resumed in December made no progress but were to continue later this month.

French    President Jacques Chirac on Tuesday warned Iran it would commit a serious mistake if it ignored the international community."

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Jan 06 - 07:34 PM

Scary stuff. Sounds like a great prelude to another war that was wanted all along anyway by certain key players. (the big ones, I mean) But it will be difficult to arrange with unfinished business in Iraq and Afghanistan still on the front burner.

Is it the last straw yet for Jack? Don't touch that dial! Will Iran see reason, disarm, and become a liberal (oops!) democracy in the nick of time to head this one off? Please, God, no! That would be the very worst thing that could possibly happen here. Let's hope their crazy president says some really AWFUL stuff ASAP. Something quotable and totally insane. We need a new deadly threat to the World. We really do. Saddam just doesn't cut it anymore. He's soooo old. Yesterday's bad guy.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Jan 06 - 07:54 PM

So Iran it is then.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Jan 06 - 07:57 PM

No way, LH. Nothing will stop the Western imperialist juggernaut. Not even if Iran was as meek as a kitten ( ...I suspect that would only hasten its demise).

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: number 6
Date: 10 Jan 06 - 08:00 PM

China.

or China will attack the U.S.


sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Jan 06 - 08:17 PM

If that happens, say goodby to your suburban lifestyle and your 2 car garage.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,Old Guy
Date: 10 Jan 06 - 08:28 PM

I noticed that right after Baghdad fell there was all this bravado about "Syria is next" All that has died out and I haven't heard a squeek about starting another war.

I think the UN might do their job this time. Let's hope so.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Amos
Date: 10 Jan 06 - 08:41 PM

I'm with you on that one, OG. The last thing we want is a second front in the deserts.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Jan 06 - 09:18 PM

Let's hope so indeed.

My feeling is, though, that expanding empires normally start new wars when they have successfully concluded old ones...except when the empire is run by a lunatic or a fool... (as in the case of Hitler, who attacked Russia in '41 with Great Britain still fully engaged...and then declared war on the USA after Pearl Harbour, as his armies were being driven back from in front of Moscow! He was out to lunch.)

Is the USA run by people with judgement that bad? Possibly.

The war in Iraq has not been concluded successfully to this date...nor has Afghanistan, in truth, unless you consider enabling the re-creation of the World's biggest Asian drug trading business to be a worthy accomplishent.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: jaze
Date: 11 Jan 06 - 12:43 PM

The only way they could pull it off would be to restart the draft. There currently aren't enough soldiers. Somehow I have a terrible fear if anything is done to Iran. I think it would escalate into a global conflict and life as we know it would drastically change. Would Bush do it? My blood runs cold at the thought of what crazy people do when they're desparate.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Jan 06 - 02:34 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/01/11/iran.nuclear/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/01/09/iran.nuclear/index.html

""The first thing to do is to secure agreement for a reference to the Security Council, that is indeed what the allies jointly decide as I think seems likely," Blair told the British parliament on Wednesday.

"Then ... we have to decide what measures to take and we obviously don't rule out any measures at all." "

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Jan 06 - 02:40 PM

"TEHRAN, Iran (CNN) -- The international community has reacted with outrage to the announcement by Iran that it would resume its nuclear research program, saying Tehran would face consequences if it carried through its plan.

"I am running out of patience, the international community is running out of patience," Mohammed ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, told Sky News.

"The credibility of the verification process is at stake."

German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, whose country has joined Britain and France in trying to reach a deal with Iran on its nuclear program, said that there were "very, very ominous signals" from Tehran and that a move by Iran to resume uranium enrichment would violate the agreement it reached with the three countries, known as the EU3.

"That cannot remain without consequences," Steinmeier said.

Austrian Foreign Minister Ursula Plassnik, whose country currently holds the rotating EU presidency, said Iran's decision to resume nuclear research was "the wrong step in the wrong direction and a cause of very serious concern." "

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Jan 06 - 02:50 PM

I seem to have lost a post. Here it is again...

They don't need to restart the draft in the US to accomplish their agenda. They (those who are agitating for aggression against Iran) are just itching to use their new toys (tactical nuclear weapons) against someone. Iran appears to be the target they have selected.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060111/ts_nm/nuclear_iran_usa_dc

Iran says its nuclear program is entirely peaceful. The U.N. nuclear watchdog has found no firm proof to the contrary.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Jan 06 - 02:51 PM

and we obviously don't rule out any measures at all

I rest my case.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Jan 06 - 02:53 PM

from your article:

"He said the international community had given Iran a chance to negotiate in good faith, but instead Tehran "is showing yet again that they are going to ignore the demands of the international community, and I think that's a serious miscalculation."

"We believe that if the negotiations have run their course and Iran is not going to negotiate in good faith, then there's no other option but to refer the matter to the Security Council," McClellan said. "If that happens then we would talk about what actions need to be taken at that time."

Asked by reporters about Washington's aims in seeking to get Iran referred to the Security Council, the State Department's McCormack said "we still seek to change Iranian behavior through diplomatic channels." "


So, in spite of 18 years of lies and violations by the Iranians, you would rather trust them then let the UN act?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Jan 06 - 02:57 PM

I don't trust the motives of the people who are strong-arming the UN into acting. These people have been lying to us for quite a long time as well. And they are already responsible for the unnecessary deaths of many tens of thousands of civilians as well as many thousands of US military people.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Jan 06 - 03:01 PM

Unnecassary because there would have been NO INVASION if SADDAM had been held to account earlier.


I listen to what the IRANIAN President says, and wonder why there is so much support for him. His words, and ACTIONS, have given me no confidence that he would not nuke the PALESTINIANS just to show how serious he is- Have you looked at the fallout patterns for strikes on Israel? ANY support for Iran in developing nuclear weapons is, in fact, support for the genocide of the Palestinian people.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Jan 06 - 03:03 PM

Unnecessary because we never should have propped him up and assisted him in his crimes against humanity in the first place.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,Crowbar
Date: 12 Jan 06 - 12:19 AM

Maybe Israel will nuke Iran for us.

I saw Tony Blair being asked what he is going to do about Iran. He gave a typical blah blah answer.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Jan 06 - 01:47 AM

If I were Iranian, I would certainly want to defend myself from both Israel and the U.S.

At least this time, the U.S. is seeking a resolution through the U.N.

I hope Iran listens and I hope the U.S. doesn't make the first strike.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Jan 06 - 01:48 PM

""Our talks with Iran have reached a dead end," German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier told reporters after meeting with his British and French counterparts, Jack Straw and Philippe Douste-Blazy, and EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana.

Straw said the group decided to call for an emergency session of the board of governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to vote on referring Iran to the U.N. Security Council.

The ministers did not say exactly what action should be taken by the Security Council, which could impose sanctions.

The decision by the EU3 marks the end of more than two years of diplomatic efforts to convince Iran to abandon its nuclear program."

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/01/12/iran.nuclear/index.html

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Jan 06 - 02:45 PM

"IRAN'S RESUMPTION of uranium enrichment dramatically narrows the options of Western governments that hope to prevent its Islamic regime from acquiring nuclear weapons. The breaking of seals at its Natanz plant Tuesday directly violated an agreement Tehran struck with Britain, France and Germany in 2004 to suspend its enrichment program; that should end European hopes that economic favors could be exchanged for a permanent freeze. A Russian offer to enrich Iranian uranium has no greater prospect of success: Tehran announced its new, supposedly experimental work before it had responded to Moscow. Notions of a broader "grand bargain" between Iran and the West have been rendered ludicrous by the rantings of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has denied the Holocaust more vigorously than he has Iran's plans to become a nuclear power. And thanks to better footwork by the Bush administration, European governments no longer have the option of blaming the United States for the failure of diplomacy.

That leaves the strategy that the United States has been pressing all along, which is referring Iran's case to the U.N. Security Council. Such a referral, which must come from the board of the International Atomic Energy Agency, probably won't change Iranian behavior or lead to Security Council action; North Korea has been before the council for three years without result. But having promised that consequence in the event of a resumption of enrichment, European governments must now move forward. To shrink from referring Iran to the Security Council now would strip the West of its remaining credibility in Tehran and all but eliminate the possibility of a peaceful solution."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/11/AR2006011101999.html

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Jan 06 - 12:00 PM

"The Islamic Republic, based on its principles, without being scared of the fuss created, will continue on its path of scientific developments and the world cannot influence the Iranian nation's will," state television quoted him as saying.

"The International Atomic Energy Agency has accepted that we are now part of the atomic club," said Khamenei."


http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/01/18/iran.nuclear.reut/index.html

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Jan 06 - 06:57 AM

""It's the Iranians who walked away from negotiations, who broke the moratorium," Rice said. "As that condition exists, I am sensing from the Europeans that there's not much to talk about." (Watch whether Iran presents a nuclear threat -- 2:41)

During her Wednesday remarks at Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service, she said Iran's history with the International Atomic Energy Agency makes it difficult for the international community to trust the nation.

"The Iranians want to make this about their rights. This is not about their rights," Rice said. "It's about the ability of the international system to trust them with capabilities and technologies that could lead to a nuclear weapon. And they have a history with the IAEA of not disclosing, of covering their activities. And so no one does trust them with those technologies." "

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/01/18/iran.nuclear/index.html

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Jan 06 - 12:02 AM

I don't trust any nation with nuclear capabilities, especially the U.S. and Israel.

I do think that Iran has the right to develop nuclear power to fuel their nation. Why should some nations have that right and not others?

From the article linked above, "On Wednesday, Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, condemned the manufacture of nuclear arms as contrary to the tenets of Islam, according to Iran's state-run news agency, IRNA."

What more do you want? Its certainly not a reason for invasion.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: woodsie
Date: 20 Jan 06 - 09:59 PM

Yanks would be too shit scared to pick on Korea!

Try some little backward out of the way low tech country like say ... England!

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Jan 06 - 10:28 PM

Well, well, well...

Seems that Bush the Chickenhawk Warrior has epent up all his political capital at the wrong time...

Sould I remind folks that there were alot of us telling him not to go into Iraq... But so much for the "I told you so's"....

But, bottom line, he got his war and screwed it up royally and mow eh an Americasn president should have some political capital, he's bankrupt...

Makes one think of the $100M he blew to beat McCain in the South Caroline primary in the 2000 election...

I'm seein' a pattern here...

At any rate, Bsh is stuck betweeen a testesterone driven foreign policy that has brought him Iraq-mire and having to do the "girly boy" thing of actually talkin' with folks????

Oh, what to do????

I'd enter into some serious talkin' myself....

But Bush, the Cowboy Chichkenhawk Warrior, prefers more of that good-'ol'boy NASCAR stuff.....

Fine...

Let the historians write it down that the mighty United Sates was brought down by a president appeasing NASCAR and TV wrestling constituants....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Alba
Date: 20 Jan 06 - 11:05 PM

I hope they don't pick anywhere close to Greenville, Maine...I mean we are right on Moosehead Lake and very close to Canada!!!!
I have an oil tank in my Backyard with 150 gallons in it...damn and I have used Google to ask questions about this administration....
:)

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Jan 06 - 11:47 PM

Don't goad us please, woodsie. We may be too scared, but you can't count on us not being too stupid.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Jan 06 - 05:58 PM

why dont you yanks mind your own business

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Troll
Date: 21 Jan 06 - 10:42 PM

I'd say Iran.

I think we went into Iraq in order to secure bases from which to be able to strike Iran if necessary without the necesity of having to deal with flying over Turkey, Jordan, or Syria.

We cannot count on Saudi Arabia to allow us to have bases there and Dubai is too far away.

Removing Saddam was a good excuse and a valid one. Since we created him, we should remove him. The man is truly a monster. It's a shame the UN mandate for Gulf War I didn't allow us to go on and do the job then.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Jan 06 - 10:56 PM

Interesting theory, troll. I think you are at least partially right in what you say. The USA has been trying to "take out" Iran ever since the Iran hostage crisis in Jimmy Carter's term of office. The first plan was to get Iraq to do it, in the 80's...but Saddam failed. His attack on Iran turned into a bloody stalemate. He then, in effect, became a liability from the American point of view.

The USA and Iran have been out to get each other for a very long time. It's an old grudge match. The USA interfered in Iran (way back in the 50's was it?) and set up the Shah. The Shah became hugely unpopular and was finally overthrown. The Mullahs who took over kidnapped a bunch of Americans and held the USA to ransom. Reagan arrived at an agreement with them (they may have been scared of what he might do...he had a reputation of sorts...). The USA then armed Iraq to destroy Iran. It didn't work. And so it goes...

There really are no good guys in this sordid little story of power politics, except for the ordinary people on all sides who suffer and die as the big game is played out.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Jan 06 - 11:14 PM

Now...being positioned in Afghanistan and Iraq gives the USA and the UK a position to launch a 2-pronged assault on Iran from both east and west. Sounds like the perfect setup, doesn't it? But will the west have enough soldiers to do it? Iran could be a very tough nut to crack. And will Russia and China stand aside and let it happen? Perhaps not.

An invasion of Iran may risk a Third World War.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 25 Jan 06 - 08:09 AM

Invasion of Iran? Most unlikely in my eyes. But a series of airstrikes is a possibility.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 25 Jan 06 - 09:15 AM

LH,

"Iran could be a very tough nut to crack. And will Russia and China stand aside and let it happen? Perhaps not.

An invasion of Iran may risk a Third World War. "

And failure to invade MAY risk a third world war, as well. But it does NOT take troops to negate Iran. A few 100KT bombs, and the oilfields would be burning for the next 50-150 years. Please note that the way to put out a firestorm caused by a nuclear bomb is to let it burn itself out... Nothing else works.

I think the goal should be to AVOID the use of nuclear weapons, by ANY side, even if the cost is a greater number of casualties (on the attacking side)

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Mar 06 - 10:49 AM

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/03/19/un.iran.nuclear.ap/index.html

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 20 Mar 06 - 12:11 PM

Ahmadinejad is begging for an attack since months. The discontent in Iran with the government and the rule of religious hardliners is growing. What he needs most to unite the whole country behind him and to stabilize the mullahs' rule is a serious threat or an outright attack on Iran.

That's what he's begging for. A ground attack threatening his power is extremely unlikely under the present circumstances. A series of airstrikes does not really damage but a small part of the Iranian infrastructure but will help to silence internal critique.

Maybe he finds someone stupid enough to do him a favour? Or someone with growing internal critique looking for a good foe too?

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Mar 06 - 03:10 PM

Wolfgang,
"A series of airstrikes does not really damage but a small part of the Iranian infrastructure but will help to silence internal critique."

The problem is that with nuclear weapons involved, that "A series of airstrikes " may just destroy the entire country of Iran... Not that
Ahmadinejad cares about his people, but he is miscalculating the reaction. Israel has too much at risk to presume that he is not serious: And the EU should be aware of the 2500 km range of Iran's PRESENT missiles.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Mar 06 - 04:25 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060320/wl_mideast_afp/irannuclearpolitics_060320175124;_ylt=Akw.kaA.csfKDH6asB0G8WZSw60A;_ylu=X3oD

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Mar 06 - 10:52 AM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060321/ap_on_re_mi_ea/un_iran_nuclear

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 10:11 AM

BERLIN - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice warned Iran on Thursday the "international community is united" in the dispute over its nuclear program, but a Tehran envoy defiantly rejected a U.N. call to reimpose a freeze on uranium enrichment. Rice spoke after a meeting in Berlin among diplomats from the five veto-wielding members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany over ways to press Iran to stop enriching uranium, which can be used for weapons. Iran says its program is peaceful.

http://news.yahoo.com/fc/World/Iran

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Mar 06 - 06:27 AM

Laxey Wheel, Isle of Man

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,01756
Date: 31 Mar 06 - 06:28 AM

wot?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,sorry
Date: 31 Mar 06 - 06:29 AM

sorry that was me - wrong thread

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,01756
Date: 31 Mar 06 - 06:30 AM

Apology accepted.
Thanks

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 Apr 06 - 01:34 PM

"The IAEA wants Iran to detail research into P-2 centrifuges, able to enrich uranium fuel to bomb-grade level faster than the P-1 centrifuges it now operates, and credibly clarify its possession of documents showing how to make an atom bomb core.

Another key issue, the IAEA says, is Tehran's failure to explain intelligence reports of links between work on processing of uranium ore, explosives tests and a missile warhead design.

ElBaradei has said that, overall, Iran has not proven it does not harbour a military nuclear programme at undeclared locations, and Tehran's halt to short-notice IAEA inspections in February has magnified such concerns.

The Islamic Republic threatened on Tuesday to freeze ties with the IAEA -- which Vienna diplomats said would amount to quitting the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty -- and accelerate its atomic programme if it were hit by international sanctions.

The crisis has escalated with Iran's public spurning of the Security Council's March 29 call -- Tehran has announced it can purify uranium for use in fuelling power stations and that it has an active P-2 centrifuge research programme."

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/04/26/iran.nuclear.reut/index.html

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Lepus Rex
Date: 26 Apr 06 - 05:25 PM

Jesus, beardedbruce, why don't you just change your nickname to "getallyournewsatcnn.com?"

And, no, no war with Iran. Unrealistic, unwinnable, unfuckinglikely. Iran has already won, will have nuclear power, will have nuclear weapons, and there's nothing the US can do about it. Nyah. All the copy-and-pastes in the world won't change that, dude.

---Lepus Rex

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 Apr 06 - 05:34 PM

LR,

I have to disagree with you. Even the EU has decided that the actions of Iran are outside the limit of civilized nations.

They MAY get nuclear weapons, but they will not have them very long.

Those who feel that thee Iranians "deserve" to have nuclear weapons will have some of the responsibility, by the encouragement they provide, for the next nuclear war. I hope that will make you happy.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 May 06 - 08:36 PM

PARIS - European nations, backed by the United States, outlined Tuesday a planned U.N. Security Council resolution to give "mandatory force" to the atomic watchdog agency's demands that Iran halt uranium enrichment, officials said.
http://news.yahoo.com/fc/World/Iran/

TEHRAN, Iran -    Iran's first target would be    Israel in any response to a U.S. attack, a Revolutionary Guards commander said Tuesday, reinforcing the Iranian president's past call for Israel to be "wiped off the map."

"We have announced that wherever (in Iran) America does make any mischief, the first place we target will be Israel," the Iranian Student News Agency quoted Gen. Mohammad Ebrahim Dehghani as saying.

Dehghani, a top commander of the elite Revolutionary Guards, also said Israel was not prepared to go to war against Iran.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2631&ncid=2631&e=1&u=/ap/20060502/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_israel_8

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 May 06 - 08:53 PM

It isn't Iran or Korea who's next...

It's Bearded Bruce! ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 May 06 - 08:55 PM

More likely Canada or Mexico, since the only reason the US takes action is for oil ( according to some here)

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 May 06 - 09:28 PM

No need to. Canada and Mexico have already been conquered long ago, economically speaking. The problem with Iraq was, they had oil contracts arranged with other parties...such as Russia, France, and China. So does Iran.

(See? I was right. You were next.)

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 May 06 - 09:53 PM

Welcome to the right!

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 May 06 - 10:07 PM

Thanks, eh? ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 02 May 06 - 10:22 PM

The Sudan will be next.

Iran is too hot to handle and what does Korea have that we want? Not much.

Sudan will divert attention from the "Iraq situation" so it won't look like the U.S. lost anything. They will continue their "War on Terror" in the Sudan at bin laden's invitation.   

More people will die.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 May 06 - 06:32 AM

NEW YORK (CNN) -- World powers meeting in New York have failed to reach an agreement on a United Nations resolution on Iran and will probably not have a text this week, a senior State Department official said after the talks finished for the night.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/05/09/iran.deadlock/index.html

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 May 06 - 01:52 PM

VIENNA, Austria (AP) -- The U.N. atomic agency found traces of highly enriched uranium at an Iranian site linked to the country's defense ministry, diplomats said Friday, adding to concerns that Tehran was hiding activities aimed at making nuclear arms.

The diplomats, who demanded anonymity in exchange for revealing the confidential information, said the findings were preliminary and still had to be confirmed through other lab tests. But they said the density of enrichment appeared to be close to or above the level used to make nuclear warheads.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/05/12/un.iran.ap/index.html

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 May 06 - 02:11 PM

same story- AP feed

"One of the diplomats told The Associated Press that the samples came from equipment that can be used in uranium-enriching centrifuges at a former research center at Lavizan-Shian. The center is believed to have been the repository of equipment bought by the Iranian military that could be used in a nuclear weapons program.

The United States alleges Iran had conducted high-explosive tests that could have a bearing on developing nuclear weapons at the site.

The State Department said in 2004 that Lavizan's buildings had been dismantled and topsoil had been removed in attempts to hide nuclear weapons-related experiments. The agency subsequently confirmed that the site had been razed.

In an April 28 report to the U.N. Security Council and the IAEA's 35-nation board of governors, agency head Mohamed ElBaradei said the agency took samples from some of the equipment of the former Physics Research Center at Lavizan-Shian. The diplomat said the evaluation of those samples revealed the traces in question."


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060512/ap_on_re_mi_ea/nuclear_agency_iran_4;_ylt=Arf4K0OrkKT4Vz1VYtqbazxSw60A;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9m

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 May 06 - 02:22 PM

Soleimani said Iran had a parallel nuclear program, with the military hiding uranium enrichment facilities while showing inspectors of the Vienna-based UN watchdog International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) civilian facilities.

http://www.iranmania.com/News/ArticleView/?NewsCode=27104&NewsKind=Current+Affairs

Highly Enriched Uranium Traces Discovered in Iran by Inspectors
By Felicity Barringer
The New York Times -- UNITED NATIONS

International inspectors have found traces of highly enriched uranium at an Iranian facility, according to a new confidential report distributed on Tuesday. The traces could be an indication that Tehran has already produced weapons-grade nuclear materials.

Iran denied producing nuclear materials, said the report, by the International Atomic Energy Association, the conclusions of which were obtained by The New York Times. The report added, "Additional work is also required to enable the agency to arrive at conclusions about Iran's statements that there have been no uranium enrichment activities in Iran involving nuclear material."

The Iranians, the report said, explained that the trace particles found by inspectors at the Natanz uranium enrichment plant had been on the equipment when it was purchased from another country.

http://www-tech.mit.edu/V123/N35/long335.35w.html

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 13 May 06 - 10:05 AM

Iran isn't bluffing (DER SPIEGEL interview)

Asymmetric diplomacy (opinion in DER SPIEGEL)

A man responsible for sending half a million Iranian children out to track down landmines during the Iran-Iraq war is surely capable of anything.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Donuel
Date: 13 May 06 - 10:43 AM

Neither.
The administration needs a success such as a reinvasion of Grenada.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 13 May 06 - 03:00 PM

Who is Wahdat-Hagh? Does he currently live in Iran, or is he, like the Iraqi ex-pat "experts" who provided the Bush administration with a lot of bogus "information", an exile with an ax to grind?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 13 May 06 - 03:05 PM

Ah, now I see the answer below his picture. He is a native of Germany with Iranian parents.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 14 May 06 - 06:40 AM

dianavan - 05 Nov 04 - 10:44 PM - No, the U.S. will concentrate on Iraq and Afghanistan.

dianavan - 28 Nov 05 - 12:26 AM - Who's Next? Iran, or Korea? Neither: Azerbaijan.

dianavan - 02 May 06 - 10:22 PM - The Sudan will be next.

dianavan - WATCH THIS SPACE for the next randomly selected candidate.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 May 06 - 03:42 PM

Oh...would that I had the time to search through other Mudcatters' posts for every inconsistency and change of mind they have ever uttered online... Heh!

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 15 May 06 - 10:51 AM

Who is Wahdat-Hagh?

He wrote his dissertation about the political system in Iran after the revolution against the Shah and has published several articles about Iran.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 15 May 06 - 02:28 PM

That one was easy littlehawk they all came from this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 May 06 - 02:41 PM

Yes, well, that would make it easier. ;-) Still, it seems like a bothersome task to go through just for the sake of portraying another human being as a fool or an idiot.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 May 06 - 02:54 PM

By the way, you may recall that I suggested some time ago that Liechtenstein was next...but I don't think it was on this thread. Well, the New World Order is being very canny about it, but I just know they are going to spring Liechenstein on us all when we least expect it, just like pulling the proverbial rabbit out of the hat. It'll be right after the giant cheese danish falls out of the sky and kills 8500 people in a WalMart in Texas. Watch for it! And get out your Put Options on Walmart stock well in advance so you can cash in after it happens.

Hans-Adam is a monster, I tell you. Another Hitler. Worse than Saddam and Osama and Noriega and Ahmadinejad (or however the hell you spell his name). He has GOT to be taken out, and he WILL be, but first the public must be alerted to the danger and the awful truth about Liechtenstein's weapons of mass destruction. That won't happen until after the Cheese Danish hits the fan....so to speak. ;-)

Now that you know it ALL, start storing up provisions, buy gold, and get ready for the worst. Liechtenstein will make Iraq look like a picnic. They have pastries coming out their eyeballs in that captive land.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 May 06 - 11:16 AM

"Only after we have created the requisite negotiating framework and explored all aspects of diplomacy should the issue of military measures be addressed. But neither should force be rejected in principle and for all time before we know the circumstances in which this last resort should be considered.

The issue before the nations involved is similar to what the world faced in 1938 and at the beginning of the Cold War: whether to overcome fears and hesitancy about undertaking the difficult path demanded by necessity. The failure of that test in 1938 produced a catastrophic war; the ability to master it in the immediate aftermath of World War II led to victory without war."


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/15/AR2006051501200_2.html

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 16 May 06 - 12:36 PM

Even Wolfgang's "Iran expert" doesn't think Iran has any intention of attacking Israel. According to him, Iran's posture is a defensive one. Here's what he has to say about it...


"Since the 1979 revolution, it has become clear that Iranian policy has two faces: a pragmatic one and an apocalyptic one. On the one hand, Iran is smart enough not to endanger itself. That's why I don't think the country is trying to obtain a nuclear weapon in order to carry out a first strike on Israel -- they are all too aware of what the consequences would be.

But even Khatami said, "if we are attacked, we will turn the region into hell." One has to take such a threat seriously. Seventy percent of the world's oil supply passes through the Straits of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf. The Iranian defense minister calls it the "world's throat" -- and it's in Iranian hands. To block the straits, all you need is three divers, a couple of mines and a ship. With incalucuable consequences. Furthermore, 40,000 people have already volunteered as jihadis. Ahmadinejad's position is: We'll fight with everything we've got if we're attacked. If we have to, we'll destroy you and ourselves together."

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 16 May 06 - 01:36 PM

"To block the straits, all you need is three divers, a couple of mines and a ship."

Eh, No.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 16 May 06 - 03:14 PM

Carol, you have an awful debating style.

Even Wolfgang's "Iran expert"... may lead to the impression that he is an expert only in my mind. First, I have never used the expression "Iran expert", so to use my name with that quote is totally wrong. Second, you do everything you can to disqualify an interview with a renowned expert. Have you any reason for that except you do not like everything he says?

Reread your stupid posts about him:
Who is Wahdat-Hagh? ...
Shooting from the hip, making stupid assumptions only showing you have not read the link in which why he (and not just anyone else) is interviewed is made clear prominently below his picture.

Ah, now I see the answer below his picture. He is a native of Germany with Iranian parents. (5 minutes later)
That's cheap. As if that alone would make him an expert. But you are still in your prejudiced an exile with an axe to grind mode and therefore only quote the birth information part and omit that he is a political scientist and Iran expert at a research institute. The interview has not been made just with any randomly chosen exiled Iranian like you want to imply.

I then merely mentioned the fact that he has written a PhD thesis about Iranian politics to counter your selective portrait of him. That makes him Even Wolfgang's "Iranian expert" in your eyes? The "even" is also a very cheap trick. You want to make people think that he was the most extreme opinion I could find. Don't make all these assumptions, I have linked to an interesting interview and I may or may not agree with him.

You have an awful debating style, Carol.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 May 06 - 03:29 PM

CarolC,

" One has to take such a threat seriously. "


WHY???

YOU have stated that the Iranians are liars, and DO NOT MEAN WHAT THEY SAY. So, WHY do we have to take this threat seriously, if we HAVE to ignore the Iranian president's past call for Israel to be "wiped off the map" ?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 16 May 06 - 03:54 PM

You make a lot of totally erroneous assumptions, Wofgang. Talk about awful debating styles.

I don't see my posts in this thread as "debate". So that's the first erroneous assumption. I see my posts as being participation in a dialogue between people with different perspectives on a particular subject.

But the fact that you frame it exclusively in terms of "debate" explains a lot about your own faulty thought processes in this thread as well as many, many others.


However, in response to your ad-hominem arguments; in the first place, I wanted to know what Wahdat-Hagh's perspectives on this subject were based on. Knowing something about his background is a good way to get a sense of this. I was focused on reading the article and I missed the caption under his picture. In fact I missed the picture entirely.

Second, I did not make any value judgements about his background when I found out what it was. The statement that he is a German native with Iranian parents is a simple fact (I know "facts" are something you have great difficulty recognizing), and I only posted it to show that I had found the anser to my question.

Third, you must have missed the post in which I used a quote from Wahdat-Hagh to support my own argument. Had you seen that post from me, you would know that I haven't dissmissed what Wahdat-Hagh had to say at all.


You're such a hypocrite, Wolfgang. Everything you are accusing me of, you, yourself have done in your 16 May 06 - 03:14 PM post. And I am continually astonished to discover how shockingly shallow your thinking is.

I am also continually astonished to discover just how often you engage in the kinds of faulty thought processes that I would expect someone with your background to be able to recognize, even when he does it himself, like projecting. Most of the things you accuse me of here in the Mudcat are your own projections onto me of your own biases and limited thought processes.

I think you are just pissed off because I have been able to use your own source to support my argument, and attacks like the one in your 16 May 06 - 03:14 PM are the only way you know how to deal with your anger.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 16 May 06 - 03:55 PM

Ask Wolfgang. It's his expert who said that.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 16 May 06 - 03:56 PM

(my last was for beardedbruce)

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 May 06 - 09:24 AM

"YOU have stated that the Iranians are liars, and DO NOT MEAN WHAT THEY SAY."



"Subject: RE: BS: Again?
From: CarolC - PM
Date: 08 May 06 - 04:39 PM

"As for what they say, I refer to the declaration that Iran will destroy Israel, and that Hamas will not take any negotiations to be binding upon them."

Yes. I think they are lying. .... The people you are talking about are trying to sway the opinions of their target audiences in order to solidify their hold on power in their own countries, and they will say whatever it takes to accomplish this goal. "

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 17 May 06 - 10:10 AM

beardedbruce, I did not present Wahdat-Hagh's commentary in support of my arguments. I showed how even the person Wolfgang presented as an expert is in agreement with my arguments. I'm not going to try to defend Wahdat-Hagh's statements. Wolfgang can do that if he wants to.

By the way, I never said that Iranians cannot ever be believed.

But I would say that, like with all other governments (all of which do lie whenever they deem it to be in their interests to do so), people need to weigh their words against other factors.

So if you want to try to throw everything they say at me with that quip of yours about me saying they do not mean what they say, I would say to you that I'm sure they sometimes mean what they say. But I will weigh what they have said against other factors when I decide whether or not to believe them. As I do with all other governments.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 21 May 06 - 04:36 PM

Carol,

if you are unable to understand the implication of an expression like even the person Wolfgang presented as an expert I cannot help you. We all know it is never your fault that your debating style becomes the focus in these threads.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 May 06 - 05:07 PM

Uh-huh. You're all just sweeping Liechtenstein under the rug, I see. Ha! You're in for a rude awakening, not that it really matters, because there sure ain't anyone on this forum who can do a damn thing about any of this geopolitical stuff anyway. ;-D

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 22 May 06 - 02:00 AM

if you are unable to understand the implication of an expression like "even the person Wolfgang presented as an expert" I cannot help you.

Of course you can't. Because it is pure conjecture on your part. And incorrect conjecture at that.

"even the person Wolfgang presented as an expert" means that I am not the only person who agrees with me. Even the person Wofgang presented as an expert agrees with me. That means there is at least two of us, and Wofgang supports the other of the two. That means even Wolfgang, at least indirectly, supports what I am saying.

You really need to stop putting your own interpretation on my words, Wolfgang, because you are completely incompetent when it comes to that sort of thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 22 May 06 - 02:28 PM

LOL

And the reason my debating style is so often the focus of discussion in threads like this one is because when people (people like you, Wolfgang) are not able to successfully dispute the factual content of my posts, they (and you) resort to ad hominem attacks. It's the best you and they can come up with when you and they haven't got anything of substance to offer. Like in your last several posts to this thread. And also when they are angry with themselves for providing me with stuff I can use in support of my arguments, like you did in this thread.

You shouldn't be so hard on yourself, though. You screwed up, but you really need to try to put that behind you and get on with your life.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 24 May 06 - 02:17 PM

What I said. You don't understand.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 24 May 06 - 02:32 PM

More like you don't understand, Wolfgang, seeing as how I know what I mean by what I say, and you don't.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 May 06 - 04:55 PM

And then....there's Liechtenstein!!!!! Be afraid. Be VERY afraid.

It may be hard to spell, but it's even harder to "take out". Very rough country, and people who are willing to fight to the last butter tart!

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 May 06 - 05:51 PM

They are already on OUR side.


"Liechtenstein has, ... recently concluded a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty with the US. "

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ls.html

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 24 May 06 - 05:52 PM

LOL, LH.

Wolfgang is wasting his energy trying to divert attention away from the fact that he got caught with his pants down in this thread. If he was smart, he'd be letting you do it for him.

;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 May 06 - 10:00 PM

I've never had those kind of feelings for Wolfgang, Carol... ;-)

Don't be fooled so easily, BB! Saddam's Iraq was once a US Ally too. Not too long ago, in fact. Liechtenstein will reveal their real colors any day now, when they invade and occupy Switzerland!

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 24 May 06 - 10:33 PM

LOL

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 25 May 06 - 06:31 AM

"Military - note:   
defense is the responsibility of Switzerland "

"Diplomatic representation in the US:   
chief of mission: Ambassador Claudia FRITSCHE
chancery: 888 17th Street NW, Suite 1250, Washington, DC 20006
telephone: [1] [phone]
FAX: [1] [phone]

Diplomatic representation from the US:   
the US does not have an embassy in Liechtenstein, but the US Ambassador to Switzerland is also accredited to Liechtenstein "

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 28 May 06 - 04:39 PM

Sometimes I think Giok was right starting that thread last year about Carol being (like) Shambles.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 28 May 06 - 04:47 PM

I think personal attacks are beneath Wolfgang and Carol and that you should both quit it right now.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 29 May 06 - 02:26 PM

Yes, good point, dianavan, although sometimes I think personal attacks are the only thing Wolfgang has in his arsenal. So I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for him to stop.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 16 Jun 06 - 11:23 AM

Despite the bleak situation, we think that the best suggestions to get out of this crisis is to entangle the American forces into another war ... we have noticed that the best of these wars is the one between the Americans and Iran.

When Bush reads this found memo from Al Qaeda in Iraq he might get an idea what not to do. At least one can hope.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Jun 06 - 09:19 AM

"Should the United States allow a country openly hostile to it and armed with nuclear weapons to perfect an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of delivering nuclear weapons to U.S. soil? We believe not. The Bush administration has unwisely ballyhooed the doctrine of "preemption," which all previous presidents have sustained as an option rather than a dogma. It has applied the doctrine to Iraq, where the intelligence pointed to a threat from weapons of mass destruction that was much smaller than the risk North Korea poses. (The actual threat from Saddam Hussein was, we now know, even smaller than believed at the time of the invasion.) But intervening before mortal threats to U.S. security can develop is surely a prudent policy.

Therefore, if North Korea persists in its launch preparations, the United States should immediately make clear its intention to strike and destroy the North Korean Taepodong missile before it can be launched. This could be accomplished, for example, by a cruise missile launched from a submarine carrying a high-explosive warhead. The blast would be similar to the one that killed terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Iraq. But the effect on the Taepodong would be devastating. The multi-story, thin-skinned missile filled with high-energy fuel is itself explosive -- the U.S. airstrike would puncture the missile and probably cause it to explode. The carefully engineered test bed for North Korea's nascent nuclear missile force would be destroyed, and its attempt to retrogress to Cold War threats thwarted. There would be no damage to North Korea outside the immediate vicinity of the missile gantry."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/21/AR2006062101518.html

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Jun 06 - 09:26 AM

more...
"North Korea could respond to U.S. resolve by taking the drastic step of threatening all-out war on the Korean Peninsula. But it is unlikely to act on that threat. Why attack South Korea, which has been working to improve North-South relations (sometimes at odds with the United States) and which was openly opposing the U.S. action? An invasion of South Korea would bring about the certain end of Kim Jong Il's regime within a few bloody weeks of war, as surely he knows. Though war is unlikely, it would be prudent for the United States to enhance deterrence by introducing U.S. air and naval forces into the region at the same time it made its threat to strike the Taepodong. If North Korea opted for such a suicidal course, these extra forces would make its defeat swifter and less costly in lives -- American, South Korean and North Korean.

This is a hard measure for President Bush to take. It undoubtedly carries risk. But the risk of continuing inaction in the face of North Korea's race to threaten this country would be greater. Creative diplomacy might have avoided the need to choose between these two unattractive alternatives. Indeed, in earlier years the two of us were directly involved in negotiations with North Korea, coupled with military planning, to prevent just such an outcome. We believe diplomacy might have precluded the current situation. But diplomacy has failed, and we cannot sit by and let this deadly threat mature. A successful Taepodong launch, unopposed by the United States, its intended victim, would only embolden North Korea even further. The result would be more nuclear warheads atop more and more missiles."

Ashton B. Carter was assistant secretary of defense under President Bill Clinton and William J. Perry was secretary of defense. The writers, who conducted the North Korea policy review while in government, are now professors at Harvard and Stanford, respectively.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Donuel
Date: 22 Jun 06 - 09:34 AM

We need a series of succesful strikes before we go anywhere else in the Middle East.
For example Ronald Regan got a lot of mileage by taking over a small airstrip in the Caribean and killing the democratically elected President Bishop.
We could do the same to Vanatu.
Besides Vanatu is the offical corporate headquarters of Halliburton which qualifies Halliburton to be excepmt from US taxation.

Free the VANATUANS from the mad man tribal chief Blimtata who drinks white wine with beef.
Peace for Vanatu NOW ! Invade before they develop weapons.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,Woody
Date: 22 Jun 06 - 10:23 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Urgent_Fury

The Invasion of Grenada, known to U.S. forces as Operation Urgent Fury, was an invasion of the island nation of Grenada by the military forces of the United States and several Caribbean nations. On October 25, 1983, six days after Prime Minister Maurice Bishop was executed by Bernard Coard's communist sect, the United States armed forces landed troops on the beaches of Grenada.Winston Bernard Coard (born August 10, 1944) was a Grenadian politician who was part of the coup d'etat that overthrew Maurice Bishop's government in 1983.
He was deposed by the United States Military in an invasion dubbed "Operation Urgent Fury."

Bernard Coard:

After completing secondary school, Coard moved to the United States, where he studied sociology and economics at Brandeis University, where he joined the Communist Party USA. In 1967 he moved to the United Kingdom, where he worked for two years as a teacher in London.

Born in Victoria, Coard first met Bishop when they were studying together at the Grenada Boy's Secondary School. Interested in the left wing politics which he shared with Bishop from an early age, the two became friends, and in 1962, they joined together to found the Grenada Assembly of Youth After Truth. Twice per month Bishop and Coard would lead political debates in St. George's Central Market Place. He also ran several youth organisations in South London.
At the University of Sussex he studied political economy. During his time as a student at Sussex, he joined the Communist Party of Great Britain. After completing his doctorate, he moved back to the Caribbean, working as a lecturer at the Jamaican campus of the University of the West Indies. During his stay in Jamaica, he joined the Worker's Liberation League. Coard even helped draft the manifesto of the League. He also worked as a visiting lecturer at the Institute of International Relations from 1972 to 1974.
Coard published How the West Indian Child is Made Educationally Subnormal in the British School System in 1971.
In 1976 Coard returned to Grenada, soon becoming active in Grenadian politics. Soon after returning home, he joined the New Jewel Movement, his childhood friend's left wing organisation. He was to run for the seat of St. George's in the upcoming elections.

The 1976 elections in Grenada were highly suspect, and accusations that the leader of the Grenada United Labour Party, Eric Gairy, had ensured that all election officials were GULP party members, and that the ballots had been tampered with. Though Coard won the seat he was running for, the NJM did not win the elections overall, and Maurice Bishop became the head of the opposition.
When Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet sent officers to train the Grenadian police and army on how to deal with civil unrest at Gairy's request, there was public outcry against the GULP leader.
In response to this, Bernard Coard and Maurice Bishop began to develop links with Fidel Castro's government in Cuba.
Aside from his support from Pinochet, Eric Gairy's mental state began to raise concerns amongst the Grenadian population. During a speech to the United Nations in October 1977, Gairy urged the UN to establish an Agency for Psychic Research into Unidentified Flying Objects and the Bermuda Triangle. He also asked that 1978 be made the Year of the UFO.

Rumours began to spread that Gairy was going to use his Mongoose Gang to kill off the New Jewel Movement's leaders, including Coard, during an overseas trip by Gairy. Deciding to take action before this could happen, the NJM took over Grenada's radio station on March 13, 1979. Before long, they had control of the entire island.
Influenced by Marxists such as Daniel Ortega and Fidel Castro, Bishop's NJM began to set up Worker's Councils across Grenada. Aid from the Soviet Union and Cuba allowed the NJM to build an international airport with a 10,000 foot runway in St. George's. In 1980, Coard was the head of a delegation to Moscow to formalise relations with the Soviet Union.
He also chaired the Organising Committee that decided on everyday matters for the NJM.

Bernard Coard was acting as Bishop's Minister of Finance, Trade and Industry, as well as the Deputy Prime Minister. In an attempt to keep up a good relationship with the US, Bishop allowed private enterprise to continue in Grenada, something Coard, a Stalinist who favoured a Soviet Union style command economy and detente class collaborationism, disagreed strongly with.
Among other things, Coard also disagreed with Bishop's ideas on grassroots democracy.
Deciding that action needed to be taken to remove Maurice Bishop from power, Coard enlisted the support of General Hudson Austin and thus the army, and on October 19, 1983, overthrew the government. He had Bishop and seven of Bishop's supporters rounded up and shot in the basketball court at Fort Rupert.
Austin proclaimed himself head of the "Revolutionary Military Council" and became the nation's new head of government. Governor General Sir Paul Scoon was detained.
The United States took advantage of the post-coup chaos to launch Operation Urgent Fury on October 25, an invasion to depose Coard, a Stalinist who proved loyal to the Soviet Union.
Just after Marines landed in Grenada, Coard, along with his wife Phyllis, Selwyn Strachan, John Ventour, Liam James and Keith Roberts were arrested.

They were tried in August 1986, and Bernard Coard was sentenced to death, but this was commuted to life imprisonment in 1991. He is serving his sentence in Richmond Hill Prison, located near his hometown of Victoria. In September 2004, the prison in which he was held was damaged by Hurricane Ivan and many inmates took the opportunity to flee, but Coard chose not to escape.
Bernard Coard has three children, Sola Coard (born 1971), Abiola Coard (born 1972) and Neto Coard (born 1979).

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Jul 06 - 09:39 AM

North Korea's missile tests last week caused no injuries or damage, but they sparked international condemnation. Officials in Japan -- badly shaken by the tests -- said Monday they were mulling whether their pacifist constitution allowed pre-emptive strikes on North Korean missile targets.

"If we accept that there is no other option to prevent an attack ... there is the view that attacking the launch base of the guided missiles is within the constitutional right of self-defense. We need to deepen discussion," said Chief Cabinet Secretary Shinzo Abe.

Japan's U.S.-drafted constitution, untouched since it was enacted after World War II, foreswears the use of war to settle international disputes, but the government has interpreted that to allow defensive forces. The question is whether such a pre-emptive strike could be defined as self-defense.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/07/10/us.nkorea.ap/index.html

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Jul 06 - 12:16 PM

Heh! I love the blatant self-serving political propaganda that is woven through those quotes, BB, and that takes itself for granted. The stuff like...

"Should the United States allow a country openly hostile to it...blah, blah, blah..."

LOL! The USA is itself openly hostile toward North Korea, and has been so ever since I can remember. It was George Bush who labelled North Korea, Iran and Iraq as an "Axis of Evil", and implied that he would feel free to take military action against them at any time...and he has the literal means to do it! Why would it be surprising that countries a superpower directly threatens with the most inflammatory hostile rhetoric should themselves BE openly hostile in return?

Wouldn't that be a normal human reaction to a direct threat?

Duh.

But, no, the USA is apparently allowed to do what no one else in this world is allowed to do (except Israel?). It is allowed to threaten anyone it wants to, any time it wants to. It is allowed to pre-emptively attack anyone it wants to, any time it wants to...and why? Oh, well, because the USA is GOOD...(ha, ha)...the USA is our saviour (ha, ha)...the USA is the right hand of God upon this Earth and it can do no wrong. Bleah. The USA is just as self-serving in its own militaristic propaganda as North Korea is...but here's the key difference: the USA can pose a mortal threat to the lives of all North Koreans. North Korea cannot possibly do that to the USA. Their ability to realistically threaten the USA is comparable to an ant threatening to bit a very large man who has a blowtorch. Yes, the ant may manage to deliver one painful bite to the man...and then it will be stepped on and incinerated.

What a ridiculous situation it is, when the world biggest aggressor superpower claims the moral right to threaten and pre-emptively attack small countries supposedly to protect itself! What gall. What hypocrisy. What blantant pretensions of moral superiority.

2. Here's another marvelous piece of manipulative and totally idiotic propaganda, intended to make an American reader imagine that North Korea is really a threat to him and his neighbours:

"North Korea's missile tests last week caused no injuries or damage, but...."

Well....DUH! Missile tests are not supposed to cause any injuries or damage to anyone! Missile tests are done to see if the missile works properly, and that's all there is to it. Every country that has missiles does missile tests for that purpose. Of COURSE the missile tests caused no injury or damage to anyone. Why the hell would they??????? They were tests, remember? Tests are not done to cause injury or damage, they're done to see if the missile functions correctly.

These are examples of the way manipulative propaganda is blandly inserted into political rhetoric in order to build a mood of paranoia in a public and prepare them to go to war. Goebbels did it. Stalin did it. The North Koreans do it. The USA does it. Every aggressor nation that wants to justify its own aggressive plans to attack others does this sort of thing.

What a collection of scoundrels they all are, these politicians.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Jul 06 - 01:32 PM

Little Hawk, post World War II there only ever has been one proven "aggressor" on the Korean Penninsula and that was North Korea.

The North Koreans and their Chinese Allies and Soviet Russian "Advisors" were driven back by Allied Forces operating under the auspices of the United Nations. No Peace Treaty has ever been drawn up or signed, instead a "Ceasefire Agreement" remains in place.

In what way has the United States of America been "openly hostile" towards North Korea? That the President of the United States of America thought of countries such as Iraq, Iran and North Korea as representing an "Axis of Evil" has more or less been borne out by events and revelations brought to light by the exposure of Dr.A.Q. Khan's activities. What was said was not openly hostile it was merely stating fact. The people of North Korea are under far more serious threat from their own Government than they are from anything external to their own country.

By the bye LH, the long range missile they tested, you know the one that failed to be "gathered" to test course and prematurely exploded. I am fairly certain that this was not supposed to happen, and whether it exploded due to technical malfunction or by command detonantion, it would still, under most "normal" circumstances and range safety rules be classified as an undesireable "near miss" incident. Therefore don't be so astounded that the fact was reported that there were no injuries or damage caused.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Jul 06 - 01:33 PM

LH,

Like Iraq, the US ( actually, the UN) is presently at war with North Korea- with a cease-fire in place based on certain behaviour by both parties. When one side violates the agreed upon behaviour, this will always bring the threat of active military conflict into consideration.

Note this is JAPAN that is considering direct military action, NOT the US. They just want to figure out if their constitution, forced on them by the US after WW II, allows for it.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 10 Jul 06 - 01:44 PM

...and what gives us the right to starve the people of Korea. They aren't any threat to me or to anyone else. When a country needs food and medicine, why should we cut them off economically just because we don't agree with their politics. Besides that, it is obviously is not working.

I don't like their leader but just because I don't like him does not justify starving the women and children.

Little Hawk is right. Why should the U.S. be the bully of the world and threaten other countries to the point that they feel they have to defend themselves from U.S. aggression? Whats right about that? Its just piss-poor diplomacy on the part of Bush. Haven't we hurt the people of that country enough?

Korea remembers the U.S. occupation and they do not want to relive that part of history. Everyone has a right to defend themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Jul 06 - 01:51 PM

dianavan,

"...and what gives us the right to starve the people of Korea. They aren't any threat to me or to anyone else. When a country needs food and medicine, why should we cut them off economically just because we don't agree with their politics."

WE did not cut them off- THEY choose to withdraw from the agreements to stop development of nuclear weapons in exchange for food, supplies, and NUCLEAR power technology.

"Besides that, it is obviously is not working. "

And we have not yet started to enforce sanctions against them, so...




"Everyone has a right to defend themselves."

You forgot YOUR implied addition of "EXCEPT the US."

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Jul 06 - 01:57 PM

I'm well aware that North Korea launched a war of aggression back then, Teribus. No argument about that. And I'm aware that it has technically never ended...in the legal sense.

What I was drawing attention to was manipulative propaganda passages in what purport to be even-handed news reports, that's all. I'm saying that they ALL do it. The USA and its foes. They all do it.

When I see a dirty duck, I call it a dirty duck...and not just when it's a dirty duck on the opposite side of the argument that I happen to favour.

The open hostility of the USA I am referring to is the inflammatory rhetoric that comes from the White House and other American sources.

I am in hearty agreement with your various criticisms of North Korea's administration.

And, yes, BB, I'm well aware that the Japanese are talking about a pre-emptive strike. They have a lot of past experience in those sort of tactics, that's for sure! ;-)

South Korea has made critical remarks regarding the Japanese position on that. Koreans in general trust the Japanese about as much as the Japanese trust them. Meaning: not at all.

As far as I'm concerned, any country that publicly talks about possibly making pre-emptive strikes on anyone is an outlaw nation at the moment they say it. There's no excuse for it. They should be seen in the same position, legally speaking, as a person who utters death threats against another person. That's a chargeable offence in this society. This would make North Korea, and the USA, and Japan all outlaw nations, wouldn't it?

And that's what I'm saying. The pity is, there is no greater authority in the world that can control such international outlaws. It's still really just "survival of the strongest" out there...the law of the jungle. They dress it up and try to make it look good, but it's not good at all. Ordinary people suffer and die because of this nonsense.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Jul 06 - 03:21 PM

"The Japanese draft under Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter, which allows military enforcement, demands that North Korea immediately stop developing, testing, deploying and selling ballistic missiles.

It also bans all U.N. member states from acquiring North Korean missiles or weapons of mass destruction — or the parts or technology to produce them — and orders all countries to take steps to prevent any material, technology or money for missile or weapons programs from reaching the North. "

"Japan said Monday it was considering whether a pre-emptive strike on North Korea's missile bases would violate its constitution, signaling a hardening stance ahead of a possible Security Council vote.

Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi told reporters his government wants a vote on the measure "as soon as possible."

"I think we must send a message that's as clear as possible" to North Korea, he said.

Japan was badly rattled by North Korea's missile tests and several government officials openly discussed whether the country ought to take steps to better defend itself, including setting up the legal framework to allow Tokyo to launch a pre-emptive strike against Northern missile sites.

"If we accept that there is no other option to prevent an attack ... there is the view that attacking the launch base of the guided missiles is within the constitutional right of self-defense. We need to deepen discussion," Chief Cabinet Secretary Shinzo Abe said.

Japan's constitution bars the use of military force in settling international disputes and prohibits Japan from maintaining a military for warfare. Tokyo has interpreted that to mean it can have armed troops to protect itself.

A Defense Agency spokeswoman, however, said Japan has no offensive weapons such as ballistic missiles that could reach North Korea."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-07-10-north-korea-japan_x.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Jul 06 - 03:58 PM

dianavan - reference your post - 10 Jul 06 - 01:44 PM

I was unaware that anyone other than that, "The little monkey turd" (Kim-Jong-Il's own description of himself by the way) of a North Korean leader/ruler/cult figure was starving the people of North Korea. He is very fussy about who he let's do that you see. Without outside aid (mostly American) thousands of North Koreans would die every year.

I am currently unaware of any sanctions, economic or trade, that apply to North Korea, but again the "lmt" is very fussy about who trades what with his regime.

"I don't like their leader but just because I don't like him does not justify starving the women and children." Very pleased to hear that it falls very much in line with the rest of the world's thinking on the matter - including that of the USA.

Common then Dianavan regale us of the dire and dastardly deeds that the US of A has perpetrated upon poor hapless, innocent, blissfully happy and contented North Korea over the past fifty odd years - I'm sure we'll all be amazed - or is this just some other outlandish, unsubstantiated claim you wanted to spout just to make yourself feel better.

Heard any complains about the US bullying people in Aceh? Or any other part of the world where disaster strikes and they are normally among the first to offer real tangible help?

This one is priceless - Dianavan at her best - "Korea remembers the U.S. occupation and they do not want to relive that part of history. Everyone has a right to defend themselves."

That honestly had me helpless with laughter for about ten minutes. Dianavan as the Korean War was drawing to a close the biggest scramble by the native population was headed South, so eager were the Citizenry of the Korean Penninsula to escape the occupation of the Americans. Now let us take at look at the differences between North Korea under it's Stalanist Communist Dictatorship - they are not a bunch of happy campers dianavan. Now what about South Korea? One of the great post war success stories, busy, thriving, one of the forefront "Asian Tiger" economies. Given the choice which would you chose to live in?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Jul 06 - 04:12 PM

All national leaders are fussy about whom they let starve and brutalize their own people, Teribus. ;-) It's called "turf mentality" or something like that ("These people are MINE, not yours, to brutalize. Keepa you hands off!"). Nationals leaders always claim to speak for their people, but their behaviour more generally seems to indicate another assumption altogether: that they own their people, and their people's main function is to serve the system and obey orders until they die.

Those who won't obey orders find out fast what the real score is. This is true in "democracies" as well as in dictatorships, only thing is, it's a lot worse in dictatorships.

There seem to be a good many Korean voices in favour of re-unification. That would be a very good thing. Japan would not like it, because they fear a stronger Korean nation next door to them. The USA, China, and Russia would not like it, because then they could not play quite as much dirty "divide and conquer" politics in the region. The present rulers of North and South Korea probably wouldn't like it, because they might stand to lose some of their power.

It looks, in fact, as if the only people who would like it are ordinary Korean citizens. That's typical. Divide and conquer tactics are always perpetrated upon the many at the bottom by the few at the top.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 10 Jul 06 - 06:33 PM

Given the choice, I would not choose to live in North Korea. Given the choice, North Koreans would probably choose to live in an undivided Korea. That doesn't mean its right to let them starve.

"WE did not cut them off- THEY choose to withdraw from the agreements to stop development of nuclear weapons in exchange for food, supplies, and NUCLEAR power technology."

"They" being their politicians and "WE" being our politicians. Neither of which give two shits about the Korean people. Nuclear weapons are important only to the politicians. Food, supplies and nuclear power are important to the people. How can they become strong enough to govern themselves if we keep them weak and at the mercy of an ego-maniac?

Yes, unification would be a sane solution but the South is afraid it would then bear the burden of millions of starving people. Besides that, the political leaders will never agree to it.

My opinion is that, regardles of the politicians of the day, we should be feeding people who are starving. I don't agree with the politics of the Sudan either, but does that mean we are just going to watch them starve?

I think we need some creative solutions to this problem, not just the same worn out logic that has failed in the past.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: gnu
Date: 10 Jul 06 - 07:40 PM

Um... I don't post to these threads much anymore, but... I see Japan is having a "debate" about whether or not a pre-emptive stike on NK would violate their constitution.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Jul 06 - 11:39 PM

I would tend to agree with the unification of Korea as being a good thing. So would most in the region on the proviso that the regime of Kim-Jong-Il came to an end as a result of that reunification.

If Japan can live with a vibrant and energetic emerging China (Japan has to because it can't do anything about it) a unified Korea poses no threat to them that they (Japan) haven't faced before. A reunification along the same lines as the reunification of Germany would be welcomed politically in Japan - they wouldn't then have to have debates in their Parliament about changes to their constitution to allow them to attack one of their neighbours.

The US, Russia and China in general gave up "playing dirty divide and conquer politics in the region" decades ago, this was just LH's usual anti-American dig. All would welcome the departure of the regime in the North, it has become a truly dangerous embarassment to it's allies (Russia and China) and as Kim-Jong-Il continues to play his blackmail games with diminishing effect (Now all parties agree with the US approach that no bi-lateral talks should take place with North Korea, it should involve all six parties) North Korea becomes more dangerous in respect of what it would be prepared to sell to who in order to get hard currency it needs to keep the regime alive.

Under any reunification process it would be the leadership in the North that would lose out, no one on the Korean Penninsula would opt for Kim-Jong-Il's, or Stalanist Communism. The only group of people I believe oppose reunification are those "Governing" North Korea.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Jul 06 - 01:33 AM

Well, Teribus, the one and only reason the Japanese "can live with" a re-emerging China is simple: they have no choice about the matter! ;-) They may figure, though, that they still do have some choice where Korea is concerned...and they'd much rather Korea remained weak and divided, I'm sure.

I am anti-imperialist, Teribus. That means that I am definitely anti-American when it comes to their general foreign policy at this particular time in history. It doesn't mean I anti-American in the sense of being against Americans as individuals. I am also opposed to Russian imperialism in various regions, and Chinese imperialism (as practiced in Tibet, for example). I am opposed to British imperialism. I'm opposed to Zionist imperialism. I'm opposed to the Turks beating up on the Armenians and the Kurds. If it were 2,000 years ago, I'd be opposed to Roman imperialism. Same basic deal.

The Americans are the Roman empire of the present era. They're the biggest imperialists of the moment, and they figure they have a God-given right to exercise imperial dominance...they figure that inside every human being on this Earth is lurking an "American" just waiting to burst forth. ;-) They're wrong. The Romans and all great imperialists suffered from the same conceit. They figured their way was "the best". There is no one way that's the best. There are many good ways to live.

I am opposed to imperialism on principle. I'm opposed to the great and powerful in this world dominating and exploiting the small. Don't forget that I lived in the USA for ten years...aged 10-20...through most of the Vietnam war years...as a Canadian citizen. I lived in an extremely rightwing smalltown part of rural New York State. I saw a side of their imperial policy and its gross assumptions of innate cultural and moral superiority...the hypocrisy and unreality of which most of them are unaware of, because they grow up with it so engrained in their education and media that they never question it. I questioned it. I was an outsider. I never forgot that experience and I never will.

I don't necessarily expect you to understand that, because you have had a different life than mine, with, I'm sure, different formative experiences...so different things push your buttons. That's the way it goes with people. We all reflect our past influences.

In any case, we can both agree that Korean re-unification would be a good thing, and yes, I believe its coming would herald the end of Kim-Jong-Il's rule and system. I could happily embrace that notion any time. I don't admire his rule or his system.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Jul 06 - 04:56 PM

How can we get NK to nuke Iran? That would solve the problem and we wouldn't even get our hands dirty.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Jul 06 - 05:04 PM

You could try praying to God for a miracle, pal. That's the only way it could ever happen... ;-)

Aside from that, your hands are already extremely dirty as it is.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Jul 06 - 05:37 PM

No. Seriously. Can we make it appear the Iran has lobbed a nuke at NK and hope they they actually have something that will make it all the way to Iran?

Maybe we can get the Jews to think of it first. That way they will catch all the shit.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Jul 06 - 12:48 PM

You do have a rich fantasy life, don't you?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Jul 06 - 06:53 AM

dianavan,

So I can presume you would be in favor of the UN removing the present government of N Korea, to allow the people of N Korea to be fed?


Gee, we ALREADY have THAT power, as the N. Korean government is STILL at war with the UN. I guess you want active combat, instead of all these messy negotiations that are not accomplishing anything...


Or is it a reunification UNDER the present N Korean government that you think will solve the problems?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Jul 06 - 02:47 PM

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- One or more Iranians witnessed North Korea's recent missile tests, deepening U.S. concerns about growing ties between two countries with troubling nuclear capabilities, a top U.S. official said Thursday.

Asked at a U.S. Senate hearing about reports that Iranians witnessed the July 4 tests, Assistant Secretary of State Chris Hill, the chief U.S. negotiator with Pyongyang, replied: "Yes, that is my understanding" and it is "absolutely correct" that the relationship is worrisome.

Hill's comments are believed to be the first public U.S. confirmation that Iranian representatives observed the seven tests, which involved one launch of a long-range ballistic missile, which failed soon after being fired, and six tests of short and medium-range missiles.

Hill said the six succeeded in hitting their target range.

But U.S. officials have long said that Iran and North Korea have been collaborating and have expressed serious concerns that cash-strapped Pyongyang was keen to sell missiles and possibly also nuclear material. "

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/07/20/korea.north.usa.reut/index.html

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Jul 06 - 04:00 PM

If I was in the administration of any small country the USA was in the habit of threatening on a regular basis, you bet I'd visit them and compare notes on military preparedness. Hell, yeah. Why not? That is what people do in the face of a common threat.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Jul 06 - 01:22 PM

Well you should have been there tinyhawk.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Amos
Date: 29 Jul 06 - 02:41 PM

The Rolling Stone has an in-depth article on the Administrations plans for war with Iran.

Also, a prize winning article on how they sold the war in Iraq.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Amos
Date: 29 Jul 06 - 02:54 PM

Excerpt:

"...the man who had long been in charge of the marketing was a secretive and mysterious creature of the Washington establishment named John Rendon.

Rendon is a man who fills a need that few people even know exists. Two months before al-Haideri took the lie-detector test, the Pentagon had secretly awarded him a $16 million contract to target Iraq and other adversaries with propaganda. One of the most powerful people in Washington, Rendon is a leader in the strategic field known as "perception management," manipulating information -- and, by extension, the news media -- to achieve the desired result. His firm, the Rendon Group, has made millions off government contracts since 1991, when it was hired by the CIA to help "create the conditions for the removal of Hussein from power." Working under this extraordinary transfer of secret authority, Rendon assembled a group of anti-Saddam militants, personally gave them their name -- the Iraqi National Congress -- and served as their media guru and "senior adviser" as they set out to engineer an uprising against Saddam. It was as if President John F. Kennedy had outsourced the Bay of Pigs operation to the advertising and public-relations firm of J. Walter Thompson.

"They're very closemouthed about what they do," says Kevin McCauley, an editor of the industry trade publication O'Dwyer's PR Daily. "It's all cloak-and-dagger stuff." ...


A

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,Woody
Date: 30 Jul 06 - 09:08 AM

John Rendon began his career as an election campaign consultant to Democratic Party politicians. According to Franklin Foer, "He masterminded Michael Dukakis's gubernatorial campaign in 1974; worked as executive director of the Democratic National Committee in the Jimmy Carter era; managed the 1980 Democratic convention in New York; and subsequently worked as chief scheduler for Carter's reelection campaign."

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,Fat Albert
Date: 30 Jul 06 - 10:10 AM

"Explain that, Fat Albert. You can be willfully blind if you look at a forest and see only the birch trees, because someone told you that there is no other kind of tree than a birch tree. That's what you're doing with regard to Cuban boat people."

Little Hawk:

I have a brother that lives in Cuba. He used to visit Cuba before Castro So he knows how it was before and after communism. I do not agree with his lifestyle but I tolerate it.

The reason he likes to live there is because he has quite a bit of money and he is a king there, a Rich Gringo. All of the basically OK Cubans gather around him to be his buddy in case they might end up with a few American dollars.

Here are few vignettes he has told me about life Cuba:

He tells me tales that give me a different view of your Cuban Utopia. He had a motor scooter there at one time. He was waiting at a traffic light and the police were pursuing someone on foot. They were shooting at him while he ran. He ran in front of my bros scooter and he had to drop it and hug the ground and duck the bullets. The Cuban people live in a police state.

Once he awoke in his apartment to find a cat burglar in his bedroom. The burglar fled when he sat up. Crime is rampant in Cuba.

Every time he has to do something official there like permits etc. The standard procedure is to put a $20 bill in the folded up application. that makes the rubber stamps fly. Lately it is tending more towards a $50. Corruption is rampant in Cuba.

The shelves in the stores there are nearly bare. The farmers spread their rice on the side of the road to dry it. When people want to cook beans or rice, their staples, they have to spread them out on the kitchen table and pick out the twigs, dirt and rocks before they can cook them. The food supply in Cuba is scarce and of poor quality.

The Cubans do not refer to Castro directly when they are criticizing him. They stroke their chin as if they were stroking a beard. Or they refer to the bearded one. The Cuban people do not like Castro.

He has a heart condition. Once he needed an operation to expand his arteries with the balloon, I forget what you call it but it fairly routine in the US. He knows several important doctors there that are connected to hospitals. They told him that they did not have the equipment, the facilities or the knowledge to perform such an operation. As a result, his son had to fly to Mexico and then to Cuba and arrange for an air ambulance to fly him to the Bahamas an then to Miami for the operation. Money can get you just about anything in Cuba except for the modern medical procedures because they do not exist in Cuba.

There may be worse conditions elsewhere in Latin America but Cuba is no garden of eden as you portray it.

When you go there on tour you are shown exactly what the Communistas want you to see. They like to have tourists come and spend money so tourists are treated differently from citizens.

And again I ask, why are they literally dying to get to the USA, like people from other South American countries, if it is so great in Cuba?

Hey Hey Hey

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Aug 06 - 12:05 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,Fat Albert
Date: 01 Aug 06 - 12:08 PM

Hey Little Hawk:

I just learned tody that my brother had to return to America because of a kidney infection that they couldn't treat in Cuba.

Pretty piss poor country eh?.

Also note the celebrations of Cubans now that they see the posibility that Castro might croak.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Ebbie
Date: 01 Aug 06 - 06:53 PM

Male Life Expectancy of All Nations of the World
2005 estimateRank Country Male Life Expectancy
1 Andorra 80.6
2 Singapore 79.05
3 Sweden 78.19
4 Iceland 78.13
5 San Marino 78.13
6 Japan 77.86
7 Switzerland 77.58
8 Australia 77.52
9 Israel 77.21
10 Norway 76.78
11 Italy 76.75
12 Canada 76.73
13 Malta 76.7
14 Greece 76.59
15 Netherlands 76.25
16 Spain 76.18
17 Austria 76.03
18 Kuwait 76.01
19 France 75.96
20 Liechtenstein 75.96
21 United Kingdom 75.94
22 Jordan 75.75
23 Monaco 75.7
24 New Zealand 75.67
25 Germany 75.66
26 Luxembourg 75.45
27 Belgium 75.44
28 Denmark 75.34
29 Cyprus 75.29
30 Ireland 74.95
31 Cuba 74.94
32 United States 74.89
33 Finland

A L O N G Chart


http://airninja.com/worldfacts/MaleLifeExpectancyOfNations.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,Fat Albert
Date: 02 Aug 06 - 06:22 PM

Different story here:

http://www.who.int/whr/2004/annex/country/cub/en/index.html

Table 4: Healthy life expectancy (HALE) in all WHO Member States, estimates for 2002

2002         Healthy life expectancy (HALE) (years)         

Total population at birth         68.3         
At birth         Males 67.1         Females 69.5

http://www.who.int/whr/2004/annex/country/usa/en/index.html

Table 4: Healthy life expectancy (HALE) in all WHO Member States, estimates for 2002

2002                 
Healthy life expectancy (HALE) (years)         

Total population at birth         69.3
        At birth         Males 67.2         Females 71.3

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/4/66
Canada was in 11th place (72.0 years) and the USA in 29th place (69.3 years).

Other countries with reasonably high HALE in the Americas included Argentina (65.3 years), Chile (67.3 years), Costa Rica (67.2 years), Cuba (68.3 years),

Hey Hey Hey

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,Woody
Date: 02 Aug 06 - 06:45 PM

Health Care in Cuba: Myth Versus Reality

    Cuba's Economic Choice: The Regime's Health Over the People's

    Cuba's economy is in disarray as a direct result of its government's continued adherence to a discredited communist economic model. This decline has directly affected the health of ordinary Cubans. Lack of chlorinated water, poor nutrition, deteriorating housing, and generally unsanitary conditions have increased the number of cases of infectious diseases, especially in concentrated urban areas like Havana.

    The grave economic problems in Cuba were exacerbated by the demise of the Soviet Union and the ending of the $5 billion in subsidies that the U.S.S.R. gave annually to the Castro government. Cuba made significant advances in the quality of health care available to average citizens as a result of these subsidies. However, it devoted the bulk of its financial windfall to maintaining an out-sized military machine and a massive internal security apparatus.

    The end of Soviet subsidies forced Cuba to face the real costs of its health care system. Unwilling to adopt the economic changes necessary to reform its dysfunctional economy, the Castro government quickly faced a large budget deficit. In response, the Cuban Government made a deliberate decision to continue to spend money to maintain its military and internal security apparatus at the expense of other priorities--including health care.

    According to the Pan American Health Organization, the Cuban Government currently devotes a smaller percentage of its budget for health care than such regional countries as Jamaica, Costa Rica, and the Dominican Republic.

    Health Care in Cuba: "Medical Apartheid" and Health Tourism

    Of course, not everyone in Cuba receives substandard health care. In fact, senior Cuban Communist Party officials and those who can pay in hard currency can get first-rate medical services any time they want.

    This situation exists because the Cuban Government has chosen to develop a two-tiered medical system--the deliberate establishment of a kind of "medical apartheid"--that funnels money into services for a privileged few, while depriving the health care system used by the vast majority of Cubans of adequate funding.

    Following the loss of Soviet subsidies, Cuba developed special hospitals and set aside floors in others for exclusive use by foreigners who pay in hard currency. These facilities are well-equipped to provide their patients with quality modern care. Press reports indicate that during 1996 more than 7,000 "health tourists" paid Cuba $25 million for medical services.

    Cuba's "Medical Technology Fair" held April 21-25 presented a graphic display of this two-tier medical system. The fair displayed an array of both foreign and Cuban-manufactured medicines and high-tech medical equipment and services items not available to most Cubans. The fair showcased Cuban elite hospitals promoted by "health tourism" enterprises such as SERVIMED and MEDICUBA.

    On the other hand, members of the Cuban Communist Party elite, and the military high-command are allowed to use these hospitals free of charge. Certain diplomatic missions in Havana have been contacted and told that their local employees can be granted access privileges to these elite medical facilities--if they pay in dollars.

    The founder of Havana's International Center for Neurological Restoration, Dr. Hilda Molina, in 1994 quit her position after refusing to increase the number of neural transplant operations without the required testing and follow-up. She expressed outrage that only foreigners are treated. Dr. Molina resigned from her seat in the national legislature, and returned the medals Fidel Castro had bestowed on her for her work.

    In 1994, Cuba exported $110 million worth of medical supplies. In 1995, this figure rose to $125 million. These earnings have not been used to support the health care system for the Cuban public. In fact, tens of millions of dollars have been diverted to support and subsidize Cuba's biomedical research programs--money that could have been used for primary care facilities.

More

Hey Hey Hey

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Aug 06 - 07:01 PM

I don't hear anything in your story that surprises me much, Fat Albert. I never said Cuba is a Utopia. What I do say is that the average Cuban was better off after Castro than before him, and that the average Cuban is better off than the average person in many other countries down there. They are all police states. You might just as well have to dive off a scooter and hug the ground while cops are shooting at an escaping suspect in Miami as in Cuba. What's the big deal about what happened to your brother in that respect? It would have happened in Mexico or Peru just the same.

You are quite correct that the Cubans experience a lack of goods on their store shelves, and a lack of modern equipment in their hospitals. You know why? They are being embargoed by the most powerful country in the world. That's why. Despite the embargo, they do manage to take better care of most of their people than Mexico does. Mexico is an American ally, so I'm sure you approve of them, right? ;-)

The fact is, I believe you would approve of any American ally regardless of what they did to their people. That's how bias works.

Sure Cubans are trying to get into North America. Heh! So is all of Latin America. They want more money, better jobs, and more consumer goods (and in some cases, a much safer daily existence).

So why is only Cuba "bad" in your eyes?

There are no utopias out there. Ever read any books on Castro's revolution? Try reading both the pro-Fidel books and the anti-Fidel books and comparing notes. I think you will find that there is something to be said for both points of view if you can put your own prejudices aside long enough to be moderately objective about it.

If the USA had chosen to work WITH Fidel after his revolution, instead of trying to stamp him out of existence, he would never have gone to Russia in the first place, and Cuba would be a friend and ally now, not an enemy. And it would most likely still be socialist. To be socialist is not equivalent to joining the ranks of Satan.

I was not "on tour" in Cuba, I was visiting private friends. None of my activities or intineraries there were in any way supervised by or connected with the Cuban government. I met people who didn't like Castro. I met many people who did like him. I met people who wanted to leave. I met people who wanted to stay.

It's a mixed picture in Cuba...as it is in most places.

Look, my friend, I consider downtown Detroit or Miami or Los Angeles like I would consider a piece of hell. But that's not all of America, is it? America and Cuba are both a mixed picture. Neither one of them is a Utopia. Neither one of them has a right to see itself justified in trying to stamp the other out of existence, but that's what the USA has been trying to do to Castro's Cuba ever since 1960 or thereabouts.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,Woody
Date: 02 Aug 06 - 09:45 PM

http://www.canf.org/Issues/medicalapartheid.htm

    U.S. Sales of Medicines and Medical Supplies to Cuba

    The US embargo does NOT deny medicines and medical supplies to the Cuban people. As stipulated in Section 1705 of the Cuban Democracy Act of 1992, the U.S. Government routinely issues licenses for the sale of medicine and medical supplies to Cuba. The only requirement for obtaining a license is to arrange for end-use monitoring to ensure that there is no reasonable likelihood that these items could be diverted to the Cuban military, used in acts of torture or other human rights abuses, or re-exported or used in the production of biotechnological products. Monitoring of sales can be performed by independent non-governmental organizations, international organizations, or foreign diplomats.

    Since 1992, 36 of 38 license requests have been approved to U.S. companies and their subsidiaries to sell medicine and medical equipment to Cuba. Sales have included such items as thalamonal, depo-provera, pediatric solutions, syringes, and other items. The Department of Commerce declined the other two requests for licenses it received for failure to meet legal standards. Both of these exceptions to the general policy of approving commercial medical sales occurred in 1994.

    Moreover, the U.S. embargo on Cuba affects only U.S. companies and their subsidiaries. Other nations and companies are free to trade with Cuba. Should Cuba choose not to purchase from the U.S., it can purchase any medicine or medical equipment it needs from other countries. Such third-country transactions only cost an estimated 2%-3% more than purchases from the U.S. as a result of higher shipping costs.

    Humanitarian Assistance

    The Cuban Democracy Act encourages the donation of humanitarian supplies to the people of Cuba, including medicine, food, and clothing.

    Since the passage of the Cuban Democracy Act, the U.S. has become the largest donor of humanitarian assistance to Cuba. Much of the humanitarian assistance by U.S. non-governmental organizations consists of medicines and medical equipment. The U.S. Government has licensed more than $150 million in humanitarian assistance to Cuba over the last four years. That is more than the total of worldwide foreign aid to Cuba during that period.

    U.S. humanitarian assistance has been distributed throughout the island, including to medical clinics. Monitoring is not required for donations of medicines for humanitarian purposes to non-governmental organizations in Cuba.

    In addition it is believed that the single largest source of medicines used in Cuba today is the large volume of "care packages" sent to Cuba by family members living in the U.S. These "care packages" are worth millions of dollars each year.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,Woody
Date: 02 Aug 06 - 10:04 PM

http://www.cpj.org/attacks04/americas04/cuba.html

Cuba

Six Cuban journalists jailed in a crackdown that began in March 2003 were released in 2004, but with 23 members of the media still behind bars, this Caribbean nation remains one of the world's leading jailers of journalists, second only to China. During 2004, Cuban authorities continued their systematic harassment of journalists and their families.

Article 53 of the Cuban Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of expression and of the press, as long as they are "in keeping with the goals of the socialist society." However, under the guise of protecting national sovereignty and state security interests, Cuban legislationâ€"including the Penal Code and Law 88 for the Protection of Cuba's National Independence and Economyâ€"effectively bars free journalism. Moreover, the judiciary lacks independence, being subordinate to the legislature and the Council of State, which is headed by President Fidel Castro Ruz.

The government arrested 29 journalists in March 2003, while the world's attention was focused on the war in Iraq, and summarily tried them behind closed doors on April 3 and 4. Many of the journalists did not have access to lawyers before their trials. Most of the defense lawyers had only a few hours to prepare their cases.

Some journalists were tried under Article 91 of the Penal Code, which imposes lengthy prison sentences or death for those who act against "the independence or the territorial integrity of the State." Other journalists were prosecuted for violating Law 88 for the Protection of Cuba's National Independence and Economy, which calls for imprisonment of up to 20 years for anyone who commits acts "aimed at subverting the internal order of the nation and destroying its political, economic, and social system."

On April 7, 2003, courts across the island announced prison sentences for the journalists ranging from 14 to 27 years. In June 2003, the People's Supreme Tribunal, Cuba's highest court, dismissed the journalists' appeals for annulment (recursos de casación) and upheld their convictions.

Most of the journalists are being held in maximum-security facilities, and they have denounced their unsanitary prison conditions and inadequate medical care. They have also complained of receiving rotten food. Unlike the general prison population, most journalists are only allowed family visits every three months and marital visits every four months. Their relatives have been harassed for talking to the foreign press, protesting the journalists' incarceration, and gathering signatures calling for their release.

Those journalists who were ill before being jailed have seen their health worsen in prison and have been transferred to hospitals or prison infirmaries. Others have developed new illnesses because of prison conditions. Some went on hunger strikes during 2004 to protest. Because prison authorities refused to allow outside contact with the strikers or to disclose information about them, their families were unable to check on their health. Some journalists managed to write articles or poems and smuggle them out of jail, and several were harassed for denouncing their situation.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,Fat Albert
Date: 02 Aug 06 - 10:57 PM

"And did you know that every Cuban has free modern medical care and a roof over his head and safe streets and a job and nice clothing and all the basic necessities of life?"

Not true except the free part.

"I see fewer cops on the street in Cuba than in Canada, and I see safe streets at night in Cuba"

Crime is rampant in Cuba and they live in a police state.


http://www.therealcuba.com/FreeEducation.htm

On April 4, 1961 the Cuban dictator created the "Unión de Pioneros de Cuba" (Union of Pioneers of Cuba).

Almost all Cuban children, including Elian Gonzalez (above), have to become 'pioneros.' If you don't want your child to be a pionero his chances of getting an education in Castro's Cuba are almost non existent Pioneros have to participate in many extra-curicular activities, like marching in front of the US Interests Section whenever the dictator wants, or any other activities being promoted by the Castro regime.

Pioneros are also asked to denounce any counterrevolutionary activity that they see at home, or at the homes of their friends, to their teachers. Many Cuban parents went to jail because one of their children notified authorities that their parents were talking about the government or doing anything at home that was considered 'illegal.'

When the pioneros participate in a government march or any other government sponsored activity, they are given a coupon like the one above. These coupons must be given to their teachers the following day proving that you participated. If you don't turn in your coupon and don't have a very good excuse, the teacher will make a notation on the "Expediente Acumulativo del Estudiante"

(Student Accumulative Dossier) that each Cuban student carries from kindergarten until he graduates from high school. The information contained in that dossier would determine if the student is later allowed to enter a college or university.

This page reads in part "Participated in the guard of pioneros of April 4." This was when this particular student was in first grade!! All the way at the bottom it says that he also took part in the big celebration of the anniversary of the Pioneros in 1992 when he was in 2nd. grade. On the other page it mentions that he "contributed to the MTT" (Militia of Territorial Troops). The quota that has to be paid for the MTT is equivalent to one day of work per month!

In addition to information about the student participation in all political activities, the dossier also has information about his family including whether his parents are 'integrated' or not, as can be seen above. This page reads "Integración Revolucionaria" or Revolutionary Integration. The first line refers to the father and the second line to the mother of the student. It shows if they belong to the Communist Party; to the Union of Cuban Women; to the CDR (Committees for the Defense of the Revolution); the Federation of Cuban Women; and the CTC or Confederation of Cuban Workers. In pre-Castro Cuba, the CTC used to represent Cuban workers and demand new benefits and better salaries for them.

In Castro's Cuba the CTC, as everything else, is part of the regime that is exploiting the workers and treating them as if they were slaves. The poor Cuban workers have to pay a fee to the CTC from their meager salaries in order to be "represented" by them. It is equivalent to Afro-Americans paying a fee to the KKK in order for the KKK to protect their rights as Black citizens!

Now that you know the facts, Would you still consider that Castro is offering the Cuban people a 'free educational system'?
I am sure that you would not want your children to become a puppet of a maniac dictator in order for him/her to be able to study a career. And I'm sure that you would not want to be forced to become a member of an organizations that you do not want to be part of, in order for your child to attend a public school.But many foreigners who go to Cuba and are ignorant of the facts, return to their countries praising the 'excellent free education' offered by the Castro regime to all Cuban children.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Ebbie
Date: 02 Aug 06 - 11:07 PM

Want to hear a suspicion of mine? If/When Fidel Castro dies - any time soon - and if there is a power struggle there - hey, Raul is 75!- what odds would you give that the United States of America won't be in there pitchin' away?

Too bad that we are already overextended...

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,Fat Albert
Date: 02 Aug 06 - 11:18 PM

Well that's what Fidel does in other latin American countries.

So does that mean the US should or shouldn't be in ther pitchin' away?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Ebbie
Date: 03 Aug 06 - 01:40 AM

Pitchin' away militarily? No. We do not have that right.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,Fat Albert
Date: 03 Aug 06 - 10:37 AM

Well suppose another latin American government tries to take over? Cuba owes Venezeula $800 mil for oil.

Or what if Red China, North Korea or Iran shows up Pitchin' away?

Does the US have less rights that those countrys?

Red China is already there drilling for oil off of Florida's coast where Liberal environmental idiots like Democrat Sen. Bill Nelson, won't allow the US to drill.

You are the sort of soft hearted whiney Liberal that would let drug addicts move in next door and then complain to the police that they were not doing anything to keep crack houses out of the hood.

Hey Hey Hey

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Ebbie
Date: 03 Aug 06 - 12:58 PM

"You are the sort of soft hearted whiney Liberal that would let drug addicts move in next door and then complain to the police that they were not doing anything to keep crack houses out of the hood." FAlbert

Must be nice to feel such complacency.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Aug 06 - 01:10 PM

Having taken a good look at the websites of canf.org, therealcuba.com, etc. and the groups that back them, plus the various anecdotal "evidence" provided by our fat friend, they doubtless present only facts, free from rabid Anti-Castro, right-wing, BuShite bias.

Right.

Ho Ho Ho

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,Fat Albert
Date: 03 Aug 06 - 03:29 PM

I think you are the complacent one that is happy to support Castro.

Does the US have less rights that than other countrys?

So what are the groups that back those websites? and when were the articles written and the photos taken?

Where are the dissidents in Cuba? In Jail? A good jail I hope. Much better than the ones in the US. Regularly inspected by the Red Cross right?

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR250052004

CUBA One year too many: prisoners of conscience from the March 2003 crackdown

I. Introduction

In the space of a few days beginning on 18 March 2003, the Cuban authorities arrested scores of dissidents in targeted sweeps. Some were subsequently released, but 75 of them were subjected to hasty and manifestly unfair trials in early April and quickly sentenced to long prison terms of up to 28 years.(1) Most appealed their sentences, but the appeals were rejected.

The Cuban authorities attempted to justify the crackdown as a necessary response to United States aggression towards the island. Dissidents were convicted either under Article 91 of the Penal Code or Law 88. Article 91 provides for sentences of ten to 20 years or death(2) against anyone "who in the interest of a foreign state, commits an act with the objective of damaging the independence or territorial integrity of the Cuban state."(3)

Law 88, the Ley de Proteccion de la Independencia Nacional y la Economia de Cuba, Law for the Protection of National Independence and Economy of Cuba, provides stiff prison terms for those deemed guilty of supporting United States policy against Cuba.(4) The law includes, for example, penalties for passing information to the US government or its agents that could be used to bolster US Cuba policy; for owning, distributing or reproducing 'subversive materials' that could be used to promote US policy; for collaborating with media deemed to be assisting US policy; and distribution of funds or materials for the above activities. (5)

In the trials, dissidents were accused of engaging in activities which the authorities perceived as subversive and damaging to Cuba's internal order and/or beneficial to the embargo and related US measures against Cuba. Concretely, the prosecution accused them of activities such as publishing articles critical of economic, social or human rights issues in Cuba; being involved in unofficial groups considered by the authorities as counter-revolutionary; or having contacts with individuals viewed as hostile to Cuba's interests. After a detailed review of the available legal documents in the 75 cases, Amnesty International considered the 75 dissidents to be prisoners of conscience(6) and called for their immediate and unconditional release.

Amnesty International has also closely followed the situation of the 75 prisoners, who are incarcerated in prisons throughout Cuba.

II. Overview of the situation of the 75 prisoners of conscience arrested in March 2003

With regard to their location of detention, Amnesty International has denounced the practice of deliberately incarcerating the 75 individuals in prisons located at extreme distances from their homes and families. This makes access to families and legal assistance particularly difficult, and can be construed as an additional penalty imposed upon the prisoners and their families. This practice contravenes the United Nations Body of Principles for the Protection of all Persons under any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, Principle 20, which provides that:

      "If a detained or imprisoned person so requests, he shall if possible be kept in a place of detention or imprisonment reasonably near his usual place of residence".

For example, Normando Hernandez Gonzalez, who lives in Vertientes in the province of Camagaey, is serving his sentence in Pinar del Rio province, nearly 700 kilometers away, while Eduardo Diaz Fleitas from Pinar del Rio is being held in Kilo 8 prison in Camagaey.

In addition, the exchange of correspondence and telephone communications between many prisoners and their families has reportedly been restricted, and family visits limited, according to families as a form of harassment by prison officials. Restrictions on contact with family members, if intended as harassment or a form of additional punishment, would contradict the principles of the UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners as laid out in paragraph 37:

      "Prisoners shall be allowed under necessary supervision to communicate with their family and reputable friends at regular intervals, both by correspondence and by receiving visits".(8)


In addition, in cases such as that of nine prisoners of conscience held in Kilo 8 prison in Camagaey province, prison authorities have reportedly made efforts to deter prisoners from carrying out activities such as studying the Bible, for example by threatening to suspend family visits. This would also contradict the principles of the UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, paragraphs 41.3 and 42:

      "Access to a qualified representative of any religion shall not be refused to any prisoner. On the other hand, if any prisoner should object to a visit of any religious representative, his attitude shall be fully respected ...So far as practicable, every prisoner shall be allowed to satisfy the needs of his religious life by attending the services provided in the institution and having in his possession the books of religious observance and instruction of his denomination".(9)


With regard to treatment in detention of the 75 individuals detained in March 2003, Amnesty International has received scattered allegations of ill-treatment by prison guards or by other prisoners, reportedly with the complicity of prison guards. Such instances would contravene article 4 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states that:
      "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment".

In one such case, reports indicate that prisoner of conscience Victor Rolando Arroyo Carmona was taken from his cell by three prison guards on 31 December 2003 and dragged to the floor while reportedly being struck in the face and body. Guards also allegedly trapped his leg in a door to immobilise him during the beating.

Some prisoners have reportedly been held in solitary confinement for extended periods. Amnesty International believes that if solitary confinement is used, strict limits should be imposed on the practice, including regular and adequate medical supervision by a doctor of the prisoner's choice and the right to appeal prison authorities' decisions. Amnesty International believes that solitary confinement can have serious physical and psychological effects and in certain circumstances can constitute cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

For example, the Sigler Amaya brothers, Ariel and Guido, have reportedly been held in solitary confinement with inadequate light and water, in breach of international standards.

The Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, paragraph 33 that states that "chains or irons shall not be used as restraints". Amnesty International has received information indicating that at least one of the prisoners, Prospero Gainza Agiero, was chained during his transfer to the prison infirmary, in contravention of these rules.

With regard to health issues, Amnesty International is concerned at numerous reports of illnesses among the prisoners which have reportedly been aggravated by prison conditions, insufficient access to appropriate medical care and, at times, hunger strikes. The UN Body of Principles for the Protection of all Persons Under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment states that:

      "A proper medical examination shall be offered to a detained or imprisoned person as promptly as possible after his admission to the place of detention or imprisonment, and thereafter medical care and treatment shall be provided whenever necessary".(11)

According to reports, at the time of his arrest Oscar Espinosa Chepe had already been diagnosed with chronic cirrhosis of the liver and liver failure and bleeding from the digestive tract, among other illnesses. Since his arrest, his health has reportedly deteriorated. According to family members, the deterioration has been due in part to the poor conditions in which he is being held, including lack of running water and lack of clean drinking water, as well as by inadequate medical attention. While in detention he has reportedly been hospitalised several times due to liver problems. In July 2003, his family presented a judicial request for his release on the grounds of ill health; they have reportedly received no response from the authorities.

In addition, in some cases, family members of prisoners have reportedly been harassed by the authorities, due to their own dissident activities or their efforts on behalf of imprisoned family members. Such harassment has reportedly taken the form of threats, summons, interrogations and curtailment of access to prisoners.

Orlando Fundora Alvarez's wife, for example, was reportedly threatened with arrest and with reprisals against her husband in prison, if she attended a reception given by the Polish Embassy in Havana in November 2003.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Aug 06 - 03:58 PM

Never assume that the people you're debating with are insane or stupid, Fat Albert. ;-) Real life doesn't work that way. It's not that easy.

If I had my choice of living in Cuba, Mexico or Canada, which do you think I would choose?

I'd choose Canada. It's safer, it's more prosperous, and it's more democratic.

If I had my choice of living in the USA or Canada, which do you think I'd choose? Easy. Canada. But I know both countries. I did live in the USA for 10 years. Canada's safer, more peaceful, and mainly just a whole lot nicer and saner as far as I'm concerned.

As I said before, Cuba is no Utopia. I don't know about crime being rampant there, but I've been in Trinidad, and it's far more dangerous on their streets than it is in Cuba. The lot of the poor is far worse in Mexico, Guatemala, and a lot of other places in Latin America than in Cuba. The Cubans do have medical care and they have education. The Cubans I met (and I met plenty) were well educated and highly motivated people. They looked good. They were slim, trim, and active. They had a lot of imagination.

The church translator there was a very smart guy. Freddy Gonzales. He came on a visit to Canada a couple of years ago for about 6 weeks, then went back. If it's so bad there, why didn't he seek refugee status here? He believes in the Cuban revolution, and as I said, he's a very smart man. And a good man. So why does he want to stay in Cuba if it's as terrible as you say it is?

I don't see it as being half as bad down there as you think it is. I think you are simply seeing what you want to see. Your mind was made up from the start.

But, hey, that's what people are like. They have opinions that they got from someone else they trusted (parents, teachers, politicians, newspapers, etc). They then run around for the rest of their life accumulating evidence to support their rock-solid opinions and totally disregard the rest.

Anyway, when did this become a thread about Cuba?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,Fat Albert
Date: 03 Aug 06 - 04:58 PM

They get education if they are a Pionero starting in the first grade and follow the communist doctrine which includes turning in their parents for doing anything "wrong"

You say you live where you choose? aren't you lucky.

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

Who wrote that? You? You brought it into the thread. Your statement about basically Ok is a joke. They are already "living in desperate poverty"

Why do basically OK people want to risk their life in shark infested waters to get to the "lousy" US?

How much money does a basically OK person make?: 210/21=$10
http://www.cartadecuba.com/Life%20in%20Red.htm

DAILY LIFE IN CUBA

(or "Life in Red")

by: Raul Rivero

Independent Cuban Journalist

(Published by Le Monde, Paris, France, on January 2, 1999)

..... A dollar is equivalent to 21 Cuban Pesos. The average salary in Cuba is 210 pesos a month.

Distribution of food and other products under the Rationing Card {libreta de racionamiento} in Havana:

Monthly, per person:

6 pounds of rice
3 pounds of brown sugar
3 pounds of refined sugar
20 ounces of beans (green peas or lentils)
12 ounces of coffee
Half a liter of oil (every two or three months)
10 ounces of salt
One quarter pound of ground beef/soy mixture
Half a pound of mortadella (every two months)
1 pound of fish
6 eggs
1 bar of laundry soap (every two months)
1 bar of bath soap (every two months)
1, 80-gram, loaf of soft bread, (daily)
1 tube of toothpaste (every two months for three people)

Distribution of food and other products under the Rationing Card {libreta de racionamiento} in the provinces:
Monthly, per person:
5 pounds of rice
3 pounds of brown sugar
3 pounds of refined sugar
16 ounces of beans (green peas or lentils)
4 ounces of coffee
Half a liter of oil (twice a year)
6 ounces of salt
One quarter pound of ground beef/soy mixture or of luncheon meat
8 eggs a month
2 pound of fish (every two months)
2 bar of laundry soap (every three months)
2 bar of bath soap (every three months)
1,60-gram, loaf of soft bread, (daily, in the capitals of provinces and municipalities)
1 tube of toothpaste (every two months for three people)

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:
Raul Rivero was born in Moron, Cuba in 1947. He is one of the founders of Caimin Barbudo magazine, served as personal secretary to Nicolas Guillan (the official poet laureate of Cuba); was Moscow correspondent for Prensa Latina news agency; received the Cuban National Poetry Award, and was one of the signers of the protest document titled the Carta-Ruptura de los Diez, in 1991. In 1995, he founded the independent press agency Cuba Press, which he still directs. He also serves as correspondent for El Nuevo Herald of Miami, and as the Cuba-based editor for Carta de Cuba magazine, of which he was one of the first collaborators. Mr. Rivero has been elected regional vice president of the Committee on Freedom of the Press of the Interamerican Press Society; was awarded the 1997 prize from the France Foundations and Reportieres Sans Frontieres; is the author of the book of poems Firmado en La Habana (published in France by Maspero Publishing in 1998), and collaborates with Radio Marti, CubaNet, Ediciones Cibi and Cuba Free Press. The author has suffered arrests and acts of rejection, and has not been allowed to travel to Paris to receive his prize, nor to accept invitations from other capitals in Europe and America.

Judging from this, the author knows more about communisim that you.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Aug 06 - 07:32 PM

Of course I'm lucky, man! And I know it. I'm damned lucky I was born in Canada to a family which was relatively stable with no serious problems. Bloody right I'm lucky.

Where in the world did you get the idea I'm a fan of Communism?

I'm no fan of communism and I'm no fan of American corporate imperialism either.

Mr Rivero sounds like a man with a lot of guts, and a true Cuban revolutionary spirit. I wish him well.

Yes, I think ordinary Cubans would be worse off in a number of ways after a pro-American administration took over. Instead of poor, they'd be homeless. Instead of getting medical care, they'd be dying in shantytowns. Instead of getting an education, they'd be child labourers in sweat shops. Instead of eating real food in a little local cafe they'd be eating shit at McDonalds.

And would some of them be better off? Yeah. A minority would, I'm sure...the ones who got the jobs in the new infrastructure and carried the guns. The rest would be up the creek with no paddle. Just like in the rest of Latin America.

They ALL want to get into the USA. How come you only notice it when Cubans do? Open that borderline at Mexico, and you will be trampled to death in the stampede.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Ebbie
Date: 03 Aug 06 - 07:47 PM

Falbert, I hold no brief for Castro- as an American I will probably never know what the man could have done or tried to do. The United States quite consciously elected to try to starve him out. The US has never - officially, at least - cared about the poverty the Cuban people have had to live in.

So when you or I or anyone else talks about how bad it is in Cuba and has been for 40 years we might keep that in mind.

I don't know if our Cuba policy came about because many high muckymucks in the US lost their fancy vacations in Cuba or if it just displays what we can do when we get mad at a dictator. In recent years no president has dared even take a serious look at the situation, what with the large Cuba-born bloc in Miami.

When the time comes that Castro dies I hope that that same bloc will go home forthwith.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,Fat Albert
Date: 03 Aug 06 - 11:11 PM

"Instead of poor, they'd be homeless. Instead of getting medical care, they'd be dying in shantytowns. Instead of getting an education, they'd be child labourers in sweat shops. Instead of eating real food in a little local cafe they'd be eating shit at McDonalds."

Another totally unrealistic hypothesis. How are things in Puerto Rico?


http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2537
(April 21, 2003)Cuba's Cruel Joke
by Larry Solomon (executive director of the Urban Renaissance Institute, and a columnist for Canada's National Post.)

"Can I have your bones?" the old woman asked my eight-year-old daughter, pointing to the gnawed remains of the chicken leg that had been her lunch. Seeing that my daughter was perplexed, the old woman displayed a box of chicken bones that she had collected from other customers at the lunch counter of the department store, a respectable establishment frequented by locals in Old Havana's main shopping street. My daughter provided the bones after the lunch counter staff gave its consent - the old woman was evidently a regular at the lunch counter, and this was how she earned her supper.

Welcome to Cuba, 44 years into the Revolution that was to industrialize the economy, eradicate hunger and eliminate the gap between rich and poor in this island nation, previously the most prosperous in the Caribbean. Today, the once-muscular Cuban economy is in tatters and its much lauded social safety net a cruel joke. The poor, in reality, are bled to support the lifestyles of the government elite, which lives in luxury - the driveways of the Havana honchos sport Mercedes - while its populace goes hungry.

Some Cubans outside government - increasingly those who obtain patronage positions in the tourist industry, where they receive tips and other payments in U.S. dollars - manage comfortable, if meagre, existences. With dollars, they can shop in the many "dollar" shops, where they can obtain some of the consumer goods, medicines and dairy products that most Cubans, prior to the Revolution, could readily obtain.

The great majority of Cubans, however, are left to fend for themselves in a pitiless system. Most must "do business" to survive, as Cubans put it, because most cannot subsist on the typical wages - the equivalent of about 50 cents a day - that the government sets for them. The old woman at the lunch counter begged for food; other Cubans beg for old clothes or for medicine, or sell peanuts on street corners. Young men sell cigars and other goods in the burgeoning black market; young women sell their bodies in the burgeoning sex trade.

Without dollars, life is grim. People line up at dimly lit government distribution centres, ration books in hand - libretas, the government calls them - for their monthly allocation. The books, which were established in 1962 to "guarantee the equitable distribution of food without privileges for a few," entitle Cubans to 2.5 kilograms of rice, 1 kilogram of fish, 1/2 kilogram of beans, 14 eggs and sundry other basics at subsidized prices. Through the libreta, each Cuban also gets one bread roll a day. Every two months, a Cuban is entitled to one bar of hand soap and one bar of laundry soap. Fresh fruits and vegetables come infrequently; meat might come once or twice a year. Until the mid-1990s, children under seven were entitled to fresh milk, but fresh milk, like butter, cheese and other dairy products, is now off the shelves. Before the revolution, two litres of fresh milk cost 15 U.S. cents, well within the means of the poor.

Cuba, a country with a coffee culture, produces fine beans in its Oriente province, but not for average Cubans. The good stuff is sold to tourists and exported to earn dollars, or reserved for the Cuban elite, while the government imports cheaper beans, grinds them, mixes them with ground chickpeas, and doles out 28 grams per month - less than one ounce - to Cuban citizens. The government also exports high quality Cuban rice for dollars while importing a low-grade rice from Vietnam for its citizens. It exports 90% of its fresh fruits, directing much of the rest to tourists and others who can pay in dollars.

Nowhere in the world does the Almighty Buck more separate the haves from the have-nots. The Cuban government has adopted the U.S. dollar as an official currency that co-exists along with the peso and cleverly keeps the poor in their place. The multinationals operating in the country - Cuba now courts them to earn dollars - are forbidden to pay their Cuban workers directly in dollars. Instead, they must turn over the workers' wages to a government agency which pockets most of the money and gives the workers a pittance in pesos. Cuba's communists have perfected the Double Currency Standard, and the double standard: One currency for the rich, another for the poor, and the rich determine the means of exchange.

Cuba's poor are also squeezed in the other necessities of life. Even in central Havana, people commonly carry water by bucket from standpipes in the street to their homes, and then lift the buckets by rope to the higher floors, because their buildings' broken water pipes go unrepaired. Those lucky enough to have working water pipes can get water at the tap - but only at certain times. In one dense urban neighbourhood that I visited, the water flowed from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m., during which time families scrambled to fill pots and pans inside their homes for drinking water, and former oil drums outside their homes for washing. About the time that the water came on, the electricity went off - it, too, is rationed by daily blackouts......

Hey Hey Hey

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Aug 06 - 09:59 AM

"TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said Monday that Tehran will continue to pursue nuclear technology, state television reported.

Khamenei's declaration came on the eve of Iran's self-imposed August 22 deadline to respond to a Western incentives package for it to roll back its nuclear program. The United Nations has given Tehran until the end of August to suspend uranium enrichment.

The supreme leader's remarks also came the day after Iran's armed forces tested surface-to-surface missiles Sunday in the second stage of war games near its border with Iraq. (Full story)"

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/08/21/iran.khamenei.ap/index.html

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Aug 06 - 10:00 AM

Diplomats say Iran has refused U.N. inspectors access to its underground nuclear site, The Associated Press reports.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Aug 06 - 01:23 PM

I've told you people before, and I'll tell you again: Liechtenstein is next!

Mark my words.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Aug 06 - 04:23 PM

"IT'S BEEN four years since the existence of Iran's nuclear program was confirmed, and since then Iran has succeeded in stalling the world's efforts to ensure that the country's enriched uranium is used exclusively for peaceful purposes. Sometimes inspectors from the U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency have been granted permission to enter the country; sometimes they have been denied access. Sometimes Iran's leaders have bluntly pledged never to give up their program; other times, as on Tuesday, they have called for immediate negotiations. By sending conflicting signals about its intentions, Iran has divided its critics and staved off sanctions, all the while continuing with its efforts to amass enriched uranium. The question now is whether the world will allow itself to be manipulated once again."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/23/AR2006082301803.html

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 01 Sep 06 - 01:54 PM

Iran's enemies are trying to deprive it of peaceful nuclear knowledge while the country has already achieved this through national resistance, he was also reported as saying.

His comments come on the heels of a U.N. report issued Thursday that states Tehran has not made any moves to suspend its uranium enrichment activities or comply with demands from the United Nations to verify that its nuclear program is peaceful.

Currently U.N. ambassadors are mulling over the six-page report from International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Mohammed ElBaradei, released on the deadline set by the Security Council for Iran to halt all of its nuclear activities or face economic sanctions.

The report, which has received mixed reactions, came on the deadline set by the Security Council for Iran to halt its nuclear activities. (Watch why Iran's program concerns the IAEA -- 2:48)

Thursday's deadline calls for Iran to comply with Resolution 1696 and end its nuclear activities or face the possibility of economic sanctions. The report by the IAEA paves the way for Security Council sanctions against Tehran.

Iran has insisted that its nuclear program is for peaceful civilian energy purposes. The IAEA could not confirm that, the report states.




The report also states that the IAEA is trying to obtain a 15-page report describing Iran's process of casting and forming uranium metal into "hemispheres." Experts say uranium metal must be cast into such shapes to form the core of a nuclear bomb.

The IAEA initially was allowed to review the document and take notes, according to the report. However, after a mid-August visit Iranian officials told inspectors they would not be able to analyze the report and destroyed the notes they had taken. The document remains under seal in Iran, the report states.






"Iran has been under IAEA investigation since 2003. Inspectors have turned up evidence of clandestine plutonium experiments, black-market centrifuge purchases and military links to what Iran says is a civilian nuclear program, according to the agency."

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/09/01/iran.deadline/index.html

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Sep 06 - 05:41 PM

Uh-huh. Still sweeping the Liechtensteinian threat under the carpet, I see...

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Sep 06 - 08:58 AM

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/09/19/japan.nkorea.ap/index.html

"TOKYO, Japan (AP) -- Japan's Cabinet approved a new set of financial sanctions against North Korea on Tuesday in response to the communist nation's missile tests in July, the government's top spokesman said.

Australia also imposed similar restrictions Tuesday.

The sanctions -- called for in a U.N. Security Council resolution that denounced the July launches -- ban fund transfers and overseas remittances by groups and individuals suspected of links to North Korean weapons programs.

"By taking these measures, we have demonstrated the resolve of the international community and Japan that is in line with the U.N. Security Council resolution," Chief Cabinet Secretary Shinzo Abe said.

"I do not know how North Korea will respond, but I hope North Korea will accept the U.N. Security Council resolution in a sincere manner and respond to various concerns of the international community," he said.

Separately, Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said the sanctions were "consistent with our strong international stand against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction."

Japan's Finance Ministry and other government bodies quickly implemented the new sanctions. Parliament has previously voted to allow the government to impose such measures.

The new restrictions target 15 groups and one individual that have links to the North's weapons programs, Abe said. The measures also will tighten identification checks on people making suspicious transactions.

Communist North Korea's moribund economy is heavily dependent on cash infusions from a large community of sympathetic ethnic Koreans in Japan. Abe said the government devised its list of sanction targets using information from other governments and information from its own findings, including groups with histories of illegal activities. He did not give specifics."

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 20 Sep 06 - 01:56 AM

"The new restrictions target 15 groups and one individual that have links to the North's weapons programs, Abe said. The measures also will tighten identification checks on people making suspicious transactions." - bb

Makes me wonder what groups and what national affiliations.

I actually think this goes to the 'heart of it'.

Now if we can just apply these same tactics worldwide...

If we can kill the profit motive, war will be much less desirable.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: ard mhacha
Date: 20 Sep 06 - 04:43 AM

Why not Ireland next?, in a vote in the Dublin Sunday Tribune 80% of the voters said Bush had made the world a more dangerous place.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Sep 06 - 07:41 AM

"Makes me wonder what groups and what national affiliations."

No need to wonder- just READ the source material.


"Communist North Korea's moribund economy is heavily dependent on cash infusions from a large community of sympathetic ethnic Koreans in Japan. Abe said the government devised its list of sanction targets using information from other governments and information from its own findings, including groups with histories of illegal activities. He did not give specifics.

Among the groups subject to the crackdown are Kohas AG, the Korea Kwangsong Trading Corp., the Korea Complex Equipment Import Corp., the Korea Mining Development Trading Corp., the Tosong Technology Trading Corp., Tanchon Commercial Bank and Ponghwa Hospital in Pyongyang.

The individual is Jakob Steiger, 65, president of Kohas AG, a Swiss company."

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Sep 06 - 07:52 AM

""North Korea's efforts to build and sell weapons of mass destruction depend on a vast network, the reach of which extends beyond Asia," said Stuart Levey, Treasury's under secretary for terrorism and financial intelligence.

The department alleged that Kohas AG has financial ties to a North Korean company, Korea Ryonbong General Corp., that the U.S. government believes has engaged in transactions to spread weapons of mass destruction. The government ordered that company's assets frozen last year.

Nearly half of Kohas AG's shares are owned by a subsidiary of Korea Ryonbong General -- called Korea Ryongwang Trading Corp., Treasury said. That company also was put on the government's blocking list last year.

Steiger owns the remaining shares of Kohas AG, Treasury said.

"Kohas AG acts as a technology broker in Europe for the North Korean military and has procured goods with weapons-related applications," Treasury said in a release. "Kohas AG and Jakob Steiger have been involved in activities of proliferation concern on behalf of North Korea since the company's founding in the late 1980s.""

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/03/30/us_targets_swiss_firm_for_n_korea_ties/

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 Oct 06 - 07:19 AM

World calls for N. Korea restraint
POSTED: 7:14 a.m. EDT, October 4, 2006
Adjust font size:
(CNN) -- A day after North Korea said it will conduct a nuclear test, world powers called for restraint.

The United Nations Security Council was due to discuss the issue later Wednesday amid growing fears over Pyongyang's military capabilities.

U.S. Ambassador John Bolton has already urged members to engage in "preventive diplomacy" and "come up not just with a knee jerk reaction."

China, North Korea's closest political ally, warned its neighbor against exacerbating tensions already simmering over the hermetic Stalinist country's nuclear ambitions.

"We hope that the DPRK (Democratic People's Republic of Korea's -- the north's official name) will keep calm and restrained on the nuclear test issue," Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao said in a statement reported by Chinese state media.

Japan's new Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe, took a tougher stand, as did South Korea's President Roh Moo-hyun.

"If North Korea were to conduct the nuclear test, it would be absolutely unacceptable," Abe said.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/10/04/nkorea.nuclear.un/index.html

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 Oct 06 - 09:56 AM

Sure looks like a good time for the UN to demonstrate it can hold Hezbollah to the Lebanon ceasefire terms..... Unless you LIKE nuclear war.




U.S. warns North Korea against nuclear test
POSTED: 9:33 a.m. EDT, October 5, 2006
By Elise Labott
CNN
Adjust font size:
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. envoy to stalled North Korea nuclear talks says the United States will not tolerate a nuclear North Korea and has warned Pyongyang not to test a nuclear weapon.

"We are not going to live with a nuclear North Korea," Assistant Secretary of State Chris Hill told the U.S.-Korea Institute at Johns Hopkins University Wednesday. "We are not going to accept it."

North Korea "can have a future, or it can have these weapons. It cannot have both," Hill said. The U.S. and its allies "are in a very tense time" in dealing with Pyongyang, Hill added. (Watch the U.S. look into the veracity of North Korea's claim of a planned nuclear test -- 1:56 )

......

Japan on Wednesday pressed a divided U.N. Security Council to adopt a statement urging North Korea to cancel its planned test and return immediately to six-party talks aimed at persuading Pyongyang to scrap its nuclear weapons program.

China calls for talks
Japan's U.N. Ambassador Kenzo Oshima, the current council president, circulated a draft text warning North Korea that a nuclear test would bring international condemnation, "jeopardize peace, stability and security in the region and beyond," and lead to further unspecified council action, AP reports.

"I think it is important for the international community, through the council, (to) let North Korea understand that noncompliance would involve some consequences," Oshima said."


http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/10/04/nkorea.nuclear.unresponse/index.html

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Oct 06 - 12:02 PM

N. Korea leader rallies army commanders
Updated 10/6/2006 9:40 AM ET

SEOUL (AP) — North Korean leader Kim Jong Il rallied hundreds of top military commanders as world powers pressed the United Nations to censure his government amid mounting concern the isolated communist regime was preparing its first nuclear test.
Japan's vice foreign minister said the test could come as early as this weekend, the anniversary of Kim's appointment as head of the Korean Workers' Party in 1997. Japan said it was stepping up monitoring of North Korea.

RELATED: Chinese expect nuclear test near border

With tensions rising, North Korea's Kim met his top brass and urged them to bolster the nation's defenses, the North's official Korean Central News Agency said. Officers greeted him with rousing cheers of "Fight at the cost of our lives!"

North Korean state television aired still shots of the bouffant-haired leader waving to an assembled crowd of about 500 olive-suited officers in dress caps. Kim later posed for a group photo with his commanders in front of Pyongyang's sprawling mausoleum for his father and national founder, Kim Il Sung.

VIDEO: World boosts pressure on North Korea

The meeting was the reclusive leader's first reported appearance in three weeks and the first since Tuesday, when his government shocked the world by announcing plans to test a nuclear device on its way to building an arsenal of atomic weapons.

It was unclear when the rally took place, or how many attended, but it could show that Kim is trying to polish his credentials with the country's cherished military at a time when international pressure is mounting on Pyongyang.

The KCNA dispatch made no mention of a nuclear test.

Kim's last reported public activity was when KCNA reported on Sept. 15 that he visited the scenic Diamond Mountain near the border with South Korea.

The North claims to have nuclear weapons, but hasn't performed any known test to prove that. Six-nation talks aimed at persuading North Korea to abandon its nuclear ambitions have been stalled for almost a year, and North Korea says it needs an atomic arsenal to deter a possible attack from the United States.

Washington has repeatedly said it has no intention of invading North Korea.

Japanese Vice Foreign Minister Shotaro Yachi, currently in Washington, told the Japan's TV Asahi:

"Based on the development so far, it would be best to view that a test is possible this weekend."

Japan stepped up monitoring of North Korea.

"In consideration of various possibilities, we are preparing for whatever may happen," Chief Cabinet Secretary Yasuhisa Shiozaki said.

Japan has two intelligence-gathering satellites and launched a third in September that can monitor the North's nuclear weapons and missile programs.

On Thursday, a U.S. military plane capable of detecting radiation took off from Okinawa in southern Japan, thought to be a monitoring exercise in case North Korea carries out a test, according to media reports.

Overnight at the United Nations, Security Council experts reached agreement on a statement urging North Korea to cancel its planned nuclear test and return immediately to the six-nation talks. But the text needs final approval from council members.

Japan's U.N. Ambassador Kenzo Oshima said a statement "most likely" would be approved and read out on Friday morning after capitals give final approval.

The Japanese draft also urges North Korea to work toward implementation of a September 2005 agreement in which the North pledged to give up its nuclear program in exchange for aid and security guarantees. The six-party talks involve the two Koreas, the United States, China, Japan and Russia.

North Korea has boycotted the six-nation talks since late last year, angered by American financial restrictions imposed over the North's alleged illegal activities such as money laundering and counterfeiting.

While all council members view the possibility of a North Korea test with alarm, there were different views on how to approach Pyongyang's announcement.

U.S. Ambassador John Bolton said the United States wanted "a strong response" from the Security Council, not just "a piece of paper." But China, Russia and Japan indicated they wanted a more moderate initial response.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Oct 06 - 06:48 AM

North Korea says nuclear test successful By BURT HERMAN, Associated Press Writer
32 minutes ago



SEOUL, South Korea -       North Korea faced a barrage of condemnation and calls for retaliation Monday after it announced that it had set off a small atomic weapon underground, a test that thrust the secretive communist state into the elite club of nuclear-armed nations.

The United States, Japan, China and Britain led a chorus of criticism and urged action by the       United Nations Security Council in response to the reported test, which fell one day after the anniversary of reclusive North Korean leader Kim Jong-il's accession to power nine years ago.

The Security Council had warned North Korea just two days earlier not to go through with any test, and the Pyongyang government's defiance was likely to lead to calls for stronger sanctions against the impoverished and already isolated country.

White House spokesman Tony Snow called for "immediate actions to respond to this unprovoked act" and said that the United States was closely monitoring the situation and "reaffirms its commitment to protect and defend our allies in the region."

       South Korea's geological institute estimated that the test's power was equivalent to 550 tons of TNT, far smaller than the two nuclear bombs the U.S. dropped on Japan in World War II.

The       U.S. Geological Survey said it recorded a magnitude-4.2 seismic event in northeastern North Korea. Asian neighbors also said they registered a seismic event, but only Russia said its monitoring services had detected a nuclear explosion.

"It is 100 percent (certain) that it was an underground nuclear explosion," said Lt. Gen. Vladimir Verkhovtsev, head of a Defense Ministry department, according to Russia's ITAR-Tass news agency.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061009/ap_on_re_as/koreas_nuclear

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Oct 06 - 07:08 AM

North Korea claims nuclear test
POSTED: 5:58 a.m. EDT, October 9, 2006
Story Highlights• North Korea says it has successfully carried out underground nuclear test
• Pentagon is working to confirm the test
• Japan sets up task force to assess the situation
• South Korean stocks plunge on reports of North Korean test
Adjust font size:
SEOUL, South Korea (CNN) -- North Korea claimed it conducted a successful underground nuclear test Monday, according to the country's official Korean Central News Agency (KCNA).

China, a close ally of North Korea, denounced the claimed test as "brazen" and South Korea said it would respond "sternly." The United States said a test would constitute a "provocative act."

South Korea's president said Pyongyang's claimed test "broke the trust of the international community."

President Roh Moo-hyun said it brought "a severe situation that threatens stability on the Korean Peninsula and in northeast Asia."

South Korea would "react sternly and calmly" with "appropriate measures" in close cooperation with the international community, he told journalists after a summit with new Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe.

Abe told the same news conference his country would work "to make ways to implement action for a tough resolution."

CNN's Dan Rivers, speaking from the demilitarized zone between North and South Korea, said the key question now was what China -- which effectively allowed North Korea to exist economically -- would do.

The apparent nuclear test was conducted at 10:36 a.m. (1:36 a.m. GMT) in Hwaderi near Kilju city, South Korea's Yonhap news agency reported, citing defense officials.

Reports of the claimed test triggered global condemnation (Full story).

Senior U.S. officials said the United States is consulting with allies around the world and would push for sanctions Monday at a 9:30 a.m. (1:30 p.m. GMT) meeting of the U.N. Security Council in New York.

South Korea's Defense Ministry raised the military alert level.

"The field of scientific research in the DPRK (North Korea's official name) successfully conducted an underground nuclear test under secure conditions on October 9 ... at a stirring time when all the people of the country are making a great leap forward in the building of a great prosperous powerful socialist nation," KCNA reported.

CNN's Matthew Chance said that Moscow said Russian equipment in the area had confirmed an underground test.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/10/09/korea.nuclear.test/index.html

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Oct 06 - 07:09 AM

"Also Monday, North Korea accused South Korea of committing a serious provocation by firing warning shots during a weekend incident in which the South says soldiers from the communist North crossed over their border."

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Oct 06 - 07:14 AM

"The South is reconsidering plans to ship 4,000 tons of cement of emergency relief to the North for floods it suffered in mid-July, a Unification Ministry official said on customary condition of anonymity.

"South Korea won't be patient for everything, make concessions on everything and accept all demands from North Korea as it did in the past," Roh said.

Impoverished and isolated North Korea has relied on foreign aid to feed its 23 million people since its state-run farming system collapsed in the 1990s following decades of mismanagement and the loss of Soviet subsidies.

South Korea's Defense Ministry said the alert level of the military had been raised in response to the claimed nuclear test, but that it noticed no unusual activity among North Korea's troops."

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Oct 06 - 07:17 AM

"The North has refused for a year to attend international talks aimed at persuading it to abandon its nuclear ambitions. The country pulled out of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty in 2003 after U.S. officials accused it of a secret nuclear program, allegedly violating an earlier nuclear pact between Washington and Pyongyang."


How many nukes does it take to remove "allegedly" from in front of "violating"?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Oct 06 - 07:20 AM

"China, a longtime North Korea supporter and host of stalled international talks to persuade the fellow communist country to give up its nuclear ambitions, strongly condemned the act.

"China expresses its resolute opposition," the Chinese Foreign Ministry said. The North "defied the universal opposition of international society and flagrantly conducted the nuclear test."

Australian Prime Minister John Howard said his government would call on the U.N. Security Council to take "swift and effective action" against North Korea, including financial, trade and travel sanctions.

"But if the United Nations fails to act effectively against this outrage from North Korea, it will represent a further diminution of its authority," Howard said.

A Security Council resolution adopted in July after a series of North Korean missile launches imposed limited sanctions on North Korea and demanded that the reclusive communist nation suspend its ballistic missile program — a demand the North immediately rejected.

The resolution bans all U.N. member states from selling material or technology for missiles or weapons of mass destruction to North Korea. It also prohibits all nations from receiving missiles, banned weapons or technology from the North, known as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, or DPRK."



Given Lebanon, I have such faith in UN resolutions and their effectivness......

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Oct 06 - 02:39 PM

zzzzzzzzzz...

You're like the conservative Yang to Amos's liberal Yin, BB. You guys should combine your political threads so you could alternate posts instead of having to post over and over again with little or no response from the rest of the community.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Oct 06 - 02:48 PM

If you think that being concerned over the increased chance of nuclear war is of no use, feel free to stick your head back in the sand.


BTW, how much asbestos has Canada shipped to the Far East this year?
What is is, 3 million dead over the next 30 years, to keep less than 1000 Canadians employed?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Oct 06 - 03:22 PM

BB, I am not personally to blame for Canada's war and asbestos industries nor am I in any position to put a stop to them.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Oct 06 - 05:35 PM

LH,

I am not personally to blame for the US's war and political industries nor am I in any position to put a stop to them.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Oct 06 - 06:17 PM

No, but you are personally responsible for having posted to this thread 11 times in a row in order to indulge in expressing your personal obsession with North Korea. That's what I was referring to when I posted.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Oct 06 - 06:21 PM

True. I have a great desire NOT to have a nuclear war, and think that perhaps if FACTS are discussed, there might be someone who CAN have an effect.

If I am wrong, we are all toast anyway, so what have I to lose?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Oct 06 - 06:26 PM

btw, that was 11 between 20 Sep 06 - 07:41 AM and 09 Oct 06 - 07:20 AM . News happens- sorry I didn't just fill the page so you could complain about that.


Now what was YOUR excuse: 8 postings in 3 minutes to the same thread?


Little Hawk 11 Aug 05 - 06:52 PM
Little Hawk 11 Aug 05 - 06:52 PM
Little Hawk 11 Aug 05 - 06:52 PM
Little Hawk 11 Aug 05 - 06:53 PM
Little Hawk 11 Aug 05 - 06:53 PM
Little Hawk 11 Aug 05 - 06:54 PM
Little Hawk 11 Aug 05 - 06:55 PM
Little Hawk 11 Aug 05 - 06:55 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Oct 06 - 06:32 PM

I appreciate your desire to avoid nuclear war. I'm sure we all (on this forum, I mean) share it.

My feeling is that major wars are virtually always started by great powers...or by clients of great powers who are acting at that great power's behest. They are symptoms of imperial competition and expansion.

I think the USA is very likely to start another war. It has already started two wars in recent times, both of which were planned long before they did start (and before 911 occurred). I think North Korea is quite unlikely to start a war, because they have nothing to gain from doing so and everything to lose. I think their efforts are defensive in nature, which is totally understandable given their position....they are grossly outmatched in destructive power by the USA and its surrogates.

Therefore, we are in fundamental disagreement about who is really a threat in this situation. ;-)

But you won't find me posting 11 times in a row on one thread to make my point. I'm not quite that compulsive, I suppose. Almost...but not quite! ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Oct 06 - 06:39 PM

"My feeling is that major wars are virtually always started by great powers"

Not from what I have read- look at WWI. each step was a small one, but added up to a global conflict. As N. Korea pushes, and Iran pushes, and Al Queda pushes, all it will take is one mistake and we have GTW. And NO-ONE has to "INTEND" for it to happen. The ONLY long-term peaceful eras in history is when there was one ( nearly) unchallanged power, and conflicts were kept small and controlled.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 09 Oct 06 - 06:42 PM

Korea, and I bet it's China that does it.....

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Oct 06 - 06:46 PM

It is the USA that is doing most of the pushing, BB. They offered Afghanistan a carpet of gold OR a carpet of bombs...BEFORE 911. Why? They wanted to build oil pipelines across Afghanistan to the Indian ocean ports. That's pushing. The Afghans did not agree. They got a war, one that fit in perfectly with USA plans which were in the works before 911.

911 supplied the convenient excuse.

Too convenient by half.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 10 Oct 06 - 12:47 PM

The NK-test could still be either a fake or a failure.

NK now says they are going to test a nuke on a missile. Make me wonder where they plan it to come down. Their own country is kind of small and their missiles are not very reliable.

NK Fuehrer is plainly mad and not (yet) very dangerous to the world outside of NK.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Oct 06 - 10:14 AM

Serbia carries some blame for the way Great War blundered into motion. But that wouldn't have mattered if the Great Powers hadn't all decided that going to war was preferable to the alternative.

Small countries and organisations can do things that provoke big countries - but the decision to respond to that by going to war is virtually always the big country's.

"It was all his/her fault for provoking me" is no kind of defence in court, and it shouldn't be in international affairs either. We are all responsible for the things we do outselves, and should acknowledge that responsibility.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Nov 06 - 01:28 PM

Iran fires unarmed missiles
POSTED: 4:05 a.m. EST, November 2, 2006
Adjust font size:
TEHRAN, Iran (Reuters) -- Iran's Revolutionary Guards fired missiles able to carry cluster warheads at the start of 10 days of military maneuvers on Thursday, state television said.

Tehran had said the maneuvers, which will last until November 11 and include drills in the Gulf and Sea of Oman, would be a show of "defensive strength".

Tensions between Iran and western powers are high as the latter try to agree a draft U.N. sanctions resolution aimed at forcing Tehran to scale back atomic work they fear may be used to make bombs. Iran says its aims are purely peaceful.

"Dozens of missiles were fired including Shahab-2 and Shahab-3 missiles. The missiles had ranges from 300 km up to 2,000 km," Iranian state television reported, without showing any footage.

A reporter for state-owned Arabic-language Al-Alam television earlier told Reuters from central Iran, near where he said the missiles were fired, that Shahab-3 missiles could carry cluster warheads. State television confirmed this.

"Iranian experts have made some changes to Shahab-3 missiles installing cluster warheads in them with the capacity to carry 1,400 bombs," state television said. It did not say whether the unarmed missiles fired were carrying warheads at the time.

Experts say Iran's Shahab-3 missiles have a maximum range of some 2,000 km, making them capable of hitting Israel as well as U.S. military bases in the Gulf. They say the Shahab-2 missile has a range of up to 700 km.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/11/02/iran.manoeuvres.reut/index.html

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 Nov 06 - 07:30 PM

refresh- WAKE UP, Ron Davies....

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,Gza
Date: 23 Nov 06 - 10:40 PM

So? If I was the Iranians, I would sure as hell be arming myself as well as I possibly could right now and demonstrating my capability to return fire effectively, having been labelled as part of an "Axis of Evil" and having been threatened by a superpower which has recently launched an unprovoked war against the country right next to me. Damn right I would.

What are you complaining about, Bearded Bruce? Would you prefer that they just unilaterally disarm, lie down and die, surrender now, and let the Americans come in and start building McDonald's franchises on every street corner?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Nov 06 - 07:48 AM

Gza,

I would hope that they would cease to threaten thier neighbors, and comply with the international treaties that they have chosen to sign, and since violated.

What would YOU hope they do? Kill all the Jews?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,Gza
Date: 24 Nov 06 - 01:05 PM

I am not impressed by your paranoia, Bearded Bruce, and I think you are a victim of propaganda. Iran has not attacked its neighbours. Iran has not invaded any other country. Iran is in a defensive posture, and for very good reason, because two of its immediate neighbours have been attacked and invaded by the USA and Britain.

In about the last 20 years the following full-scale military invasions have been launched in that region:

Iraq invaded Iran (with encouragement and aid from the USA)
Iraq invaded Kuwait
The USA and Britain invaded Iraq (twice now)
Israel invaded Lebanon (twice now)
The USA and Britain invaded Afghanistan (over a criminal act committed not by Afghanistan, but by a secret terrorist organization based in a number of different places, including Afghanistan)

Iran has not invaded anybody during that same period. Iran has been attacked and threatened with further attack.

They are the ones who ought to be paranoid, Bearded Bruce, and they have every reason to be testing and perfecting whatever missiles they have, and they also have a legal right to pursue a nuclear energy program if they want to. Their nuclear reactor is not an illegal device, and their enriching of uranium is not an illegal act, it is a perfectly normal thing for them to do if they are pursuing a nuclear energy program.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Nov 06 - 07:18 AM

"they also have a legal right to pursue a nuclear energy program if they want to. "

Except that they signed the NNPA, and were given acces to nuclear technology under the conditions that it would be monitored- WHICH THEY HAVE NOW REFUSED.


"Their nuclear reactor is not an illegal device, "

Since IRAN signed the NNPA, the plutonium producing reactor is only legal if monitoered by the UN, and Iran has refused to allow the specified access to the inspectors- ie, the reactor IS illegal.



"and their enriching of uranium is not an illegal act,"

Since IRAN signed the NNPA, and has recieved the benifits from it, but has not allowed the inspections required, IRAN's enrichment of uranium IS illegal.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,Gza
Date: 25 Nov 06 - 03:28 PM

Uh-huh. And also, the USA & Britain's pre-emptive war on Iraq was illegal, their occupation of Iraq is illegal, and the USA's setting up of prison camps such as Guantanamo is illegal, and the USA's use of torture on war prisoners is illegal.

So who has committed the worse illegalities here, and who has killed more people...Iran or the USA?

And what would you propose to do about such international criminals as those who launch unprovoked pre-emptive wars that cause death and misery to hundreds of thousands of people?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Nov 06 - 12:59 AM

Russia is the prize. It will be Russia, by way of Iran.

The Neo-cons have begun psy-oping the American public to accept war with Russia. The Drudge Report has begun linking Iran to Russia with reports of nuclear exchange programs, arms sales, etc. Softening us up to accept some bogus accusations against Russia.

The neo-cons in the White House, by the way, are Trotskyite communists. Look up congressman Ron Paul's speech "Neo-conned" for the most complete and accurate definition of what a neo-con is. But they are communists. Trotskyites. They've taken over the Republican party through stealth and are now preparing to wage war against the Leninists of the old Soviet Union. People like Putin.

Some people call the Trotskyites "Jewish communists," but it's not as simple as that. True, Lenin and Stalin murdered lots of Jews, and half of Clinton's advisors were Jewish zionists, and Bush's advisors are zionists, and the head of Homeland Security has dual Israeli-American citizenship, and the zionist ADL is about to outlaw free speech in America with "anti hate-speech" legislation, but... Wait a minute. Maybe the zionists ARE running America and they ARE going to use us to attack Russia as payback for the pogroms. Never mind. Let's just keep it simple. Iran.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Feb 07 - 06:20 PM

VIENNA, Austria (AP) -- The U.N. nuclear watchdog agency on Friday suspended nearly half of the technical aid it now provides Iran, in line with U.N. sanctions slapped on the Islamic republic for its refusal to suspend its uranium enrichment program.

As IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei issued the report to his agency's 35-nation board, Iran's chief nuclear negotiator abruptly canceled planned meetings both with ElBaradei in Vienna and with senior European leaders in Munich, on the sidelines of a security conference in the German city.

Organizers of the Munich conference said negotiator Ali Larijani canceled because of an unspecified illness, while IAEA officials said they were told he was not coming for "technical reasons."

Larijani's meetings with German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier and Javier Solana, the chief foreign policy envoy for the European Union, would have been the first with senior Western officials since negotiations with Solana collapsed last year over Tehran's refusal to suspend enrichment, a potential pathway to nuclear arms.

One diplomat in Vienna who is familiar with the Iranian file suggested that Larijani's decision not to show could have been due to the refusal of other major European nations, like France or Britain, to meet with Larijani because of his country's continued nuclear defiance.

The Vienna-based IAEA had already suspended aid to Iran in five instances last month in line with Security Council sanctions calling for an end to assistance for programs that could be misused to make an atomic weapon. On Friday, the agency fully or partially suspended another 18 projects that it deemed could be misused. All the decisions are subject to review and approval by the 35-nation board of the IAEA next month.

Iran gets IAEA technical aid for 15 projects and 40 more that involve other countries. The suspensions were across the board but in the case of projects involving other countries affected only Iran.

A diplomat familiar with the issue said the United States -- along with key allies -- had been looking to have up to half of the projects involving only Iran canceled, restricted or more closely monitored.

A U.S. official said Washington's position on what projects should be affected was "very similar" to that of the European powers, Britain, France and Germany.

Visible strains
The United States, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany all want Iran to stop its enrichment program and have acted as a group in trying to engage Tehran on the issue. But their approaches and priorities have differed over the past year -- resulting in often visible strains in what is meant to be a joint initiative.

Russian and Chinese reluctance to slap harsh sanctions on Tehran -- as initially demanded by Washington -- have created the greatest pressures. Both nations share economic and strategic interests with Iran.

Differences over how severely to punish Tehran for its refusal to suspend enrichment led to months of disputes before agreement was reached in December on a Security Council resolution imposing limited sanctions that fell short of the harsher measures the Americans had pushed for.

The sanctions include a review of technical aid to Iran -- programs meant to bolster the peaceful use of nuclear energy in medicine, agriculture or power generation and the suspensions outlined in Friday's report were in line with that specification.

In November, the board of the agency indefinitely suspended an IAEA project that would have helped Iran put safety measures in place for a heavy water reactor that, once completed, will produce plutonium. Most of the projects up for review at the March meeting, however, are for programs that have less obvious potential weapons applications.

They include cancer nuclear waste storage programs, management training courses, safety projects and requests for help in international nuclear licensing procedures.

The March meeting also will hear a separate report from ElBaradei expected to confirm that Iran has expanded its enrichment efforts instead of mothballing them -- a development that would empower the Security Council to impose stricter sanctions.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Feb 07 - 06:44 PM

Fascinating. Now, how shall we, as a world community, "severely punish" the USA for outright and unprovoked wars of aggression on small countries such as Iraq (and various others in the past, because there have been several of them)?

What's worse? Enriching uranium and possibly (but not necessarily) building atomic weapons in secret (as Israel has done long ago)...or outright invading and attacking other countries and taking them over just because you want to and you can?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Feb 07 - 06:50 PM

LH,

Israel never signed the Nonroliferation agreement, which Iran did- and Iran benefitted from that-NOW they want to ignore the fact that they agreed to be monitored and restricted , in order to be given technology- NOT develop it on their own.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: robomatic
Date: 09 Feb 07 - 06:51 PM

Simpsons Dialog:

Marge (to Bart): Oh, now we'll have to find a new school for you.

Homer: Yeah, and if you get kicked out of that one, you're going straight in the army, where you'll get sent to America's latest military quagmire. Where will it be? North Korea? Iran? Anything's possible with Commander Cookoo Bananas in charge.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Feb 07 - 06:52 PM

Sort of like signing a mortgage, then refusing to pay it off- as opposed to building your own house.

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

When it comes to this sort of thing, BB, I am much more concerned with the spirit of the law than I am with the letter of the law. I've noticed that people always yell about technical legal violations by people they are already against for some reason...but they remain mysteriously silent about similar or even much worse technical legal violations by people they are already for.

Typical human psychology. ;-) No one is totally objective or fair, everyone is prejudiced.

As for me, I generally focus more on the wrongdoings of the powerful and mighty in this world as opposed to the wrongdoings of the weak. The powerful are more dangerous than the weak, and they commit greater crimes and hurt more people. That's my prejudice. I will usually side against great empires and in favour of their victims.

Thus, in 1775 I am quite certain I would have been supporting George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Ben Franklin and opposing the bloody British Empire. The American revolutionaries were the "communists" and "terrorists" of their day...in the eyes of mainstream society...because mainstream society was monarchist, and had been for a very, very long time. The radical new republican ideals espoused by the American revolutionaries in the 1770's were every bit as despised by that mainstream society and every bit as radical in their time as the ideals of leftist radicals who fight the USA now in South and Central America.

The historical roles have switched. The USA now occupies the same bloody and hypocritical ground that was occupied by Great Britain when the British Empire was the greatest power in the world. The USA now stands directly in the way of democracy, equality, freedom, and social justice on this planet. It has betrayed the ideals of its founding fathers about as completely as could possibly have been done. And that was all done for what? For money.

As for the Islamic government in Iran...I do not in any way admire it, but I do support Iran's right to self-determination and self-rule as I would with any other country. I will not support them if they attack someone. I will support them if they defend themselves against an attack. It's that simple.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Feb 07 - 08:07 PM

" It has betrayed the ideals of its founding fathers about as completely as could possibly have been done. And that was all done for what? For money."

And Canada, sending its asbestos to SE asia, with an expected kill rate of 3+ million over the next few decades? $$$$$- and the jobs of a thousand miners.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Feb 07 - 08:13 PM

Of course. Canada is run by exactly the same mega-corporations and great financial powers that run the USA. We're just an American branch plant up here. We're part of the American Empire. What did you expect? ;-)

That's why our soldiers serve as your hired dogs in Afghanistan too.

Be that as it may, Canada is still a bit saner place to live in, on the whole. We have universal medicare and a much lower murder rate per capita than the USA. Mind you, things can always get worse, can't they?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Feb 07 - 08:15 PM

extrapolate the kill rate if the US stays in Iraq for 30 years- It still would be less than the death rate due to Canadian asbestos.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Feb 07 - 08:27 PM

Are you quite sure? ;-) I think the USA has killed many more people. Besides, the USA controls Canada. Don't forget that. It's a fact. Canada is controlled by American corporate funding and there is not a thing that Canadian voters can do about it, I assure you.

If we, as a country, really tried to do something about it...the same thing would happen to us that happens to other people in similar circumstances where the Empire rules through its financial carrot and stick routine. Our economy would be gutted. Our political leaders would be brought down by one means or another, including assassination if necessary...and they would be replaced by loyal corporate servants of the Empire. Our medicare system would be privatized and would cease effectively to exist from that point on. Our poor would grow poorer. Our middle class would shrink.

The reason these things don't happen (much) is because we are basically compliant with Empire policy about 98% of the time, and that's good enough for the controllers. They indulge us as long as we cooperate with them.

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

Little Hawk, your post of 09 Feb 07 - 07:13 PM has got to be the greatest example of historically incorrect, emotion-based twaddle I have ever heard you come out with. Complete and utter crap.

It is however noted that your anti-empire rants never include those Empires of the Left. While it may be true that the meddling of the US and western democracies cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands since the end of the Second World War, the meddling undertaken by the USSR, China and the puppet regimes they set up in their satellite States caused the deaths of millions. But you will never hear Little Hawk come out against that in the same way that he goes after the US and, how did he put it again, "the bloody British Empire".

The general concensus of historians the world over is that the influences on the general world situation on balance have been enhanced by the efforts, activities and developement introduced by the UK and the USA.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 10 Feb 07 - 03:48 PM

"The general concensus of historians the world over is that the influences on the general world situation on balance have been enhanced by the efforts, activities and developement introduced by the UK and the USA."

Actually, teribus, I don't think the Muslim world actually wants the type of enhancement that the U.S. and Britain have to offer. In fact, your statement says it all.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Feb 07 - 04:52 PM

I agree with you 100% about the USSR and China's nefarious activities in that regard, Teribus. ;-)

However, when I am myself LIVING in a society where 999 out of 1,000 people already KNOW about the nefarious activities of the USSR and China, and take it for granted, yet at least 625 of them are apparently blissfully unaware of the nefarious activities of the Empire they themselves live in and tacitly support.....! I feel obliged to point out the latter inconsistency in their thinking and their powers of observation.

Why beat an already dead horse? That's what I would be doing if I raved on about the evil activities of the USSR and China, or of Osama Bin Laden and the Wahabi sect, or of the Iranian mullahs, while living in the West. I mean....DUH!!!!! Did I not know those guys do bad things already???? Doesn't everyone I know, know it? Will it help for me to be one more voice in a gigantic mob of sheep who point it out daily, thus echoing their mass media obediently, like good, loyal little people in Orwell's 1984?

It beats me why this hasn't occurred to you, frankly... ;-) But I guess it would interfere with your usual train of thought, and you'd have to confront the possibility that I'm not entirely stupid or entirely wrong. I think it's more important to expose the evil in one's own residence than the evil in someone else's who is far, far away. MUCH more important. It is the evil in your own residence that blinds and enslaves you. Foreign evils are very, very easy to spot.

Anyway, print out this whole post and stick it on your fridge so you don't ever again forget that I agree with you about the nasty empire-building activities and misdeeds of the Soviets and Red China.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Feb 07 - 03:46 PM

"Actually, teribus, I don't think the Muslim world actually wants the type of enhancement that the U.S. and Britain have to offer."

No, of course they don't dianavan, they want their followers ignorant and subserviant, i.e. fully prepared to believe absolutely whatever line of complete and utter bullshit that they deem compelled to peddle at any given moment for their own purposes. Normally associated with ends that are utterly corrupt and self serving - Example - Tosser Arafat - Leader - never exhibited any type of leadership in his entire life - He amassed a personal fortune of hundreds of millions of dollars stolen from the Palestinian people.

That is why the late King of Jordan's brother stated, quite correctly, that if you went to the market in any arab city and set up two booths, one enlisting for Jihad against the USA and the other handing out American visas, for every one person in the former line you would see one thousand in the latter.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Feb 07 - 04:05 PM

The USA wants its people ignorant and subservient too, for much the same reasons. So they will believe the unbelievable, and follow orders. ;-) Every dominating and oppressive system wants its people that way. The same was true of the Soviets, and is true of Red China.

In the case of the USA, this is achieved through a barrage of political propaganda, news that misleads and disinforms, and mass marketing of goods and entertainment.

Who is MORE ignorant? Well, that would be a tough, tough competition at this point.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Feb 07 - 01:35 AM

Little Hawk - 11 Feb 07 - 04:05 PM

"The USA wants its people ignorant and subservient too"

Utterly ridiculous!!

I suppose that is why in the US you are free to say whatever you want, read whatever you chose, educate yourself in whatever way you chose, worship in whatever way you chose, free to protest whatever you want.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 12 Feb 07 - 02:19 AM

"...ignorant and subserviant?"

Actually, teribus, just because your govt. is Muslim doesn't mean you are ignorant and subservient. Saudi Arabia also has a baathist regime. Are you saying they are ignorant and subservient? What about the people of other Muslim countries? What about Jordan? Ever look at their educational system?   

Yes, we may have more freedom but don't think our present govts. wouldn't rob us of those freedoms if they had a chance.

...and when it comes to self-serving and corrupt, I don't think Western governments have anything to brag about. Its laughable to think that we are free because of Bush, Cheney or Blair.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Feb 07 - 04:46 AM

"...but don't think our present govts. wouldn't rob us of those freedoms if they had a chance."

Now why on earth would they do that dianavan? What purpose would that serve?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Feb 07 - 09:50 AM

You don't have to jail people if they consent to being their own mental jailors. You can easily keep them ignorant by simply feeding them a lot of false information. Americans (in a general sense) are famous all around the world for their ignorance of what the world is like outside their own borders.

The so-called "free press" in North America is mostly owned by a few conglomerates, major corporations, and they control the viewpoints expressed in 98% of what goes out in print. This results in a population that is spoon fed nonsense from the day they are born till the day they die, and they believe it, of course.

There are numerous societies which are freer and more open-minded than the USA is right now. Iran is not one of them, needless to say. ;-) But I doubt that Iranians are stupid, and I think you might find a good many of them more aware of certain realities than you think. Third World people are often more realistic about what's going on internationally than their spoon-fed, fat, coddled, stupefied counterparts in North America are. Why? Because they deal with the more unpleasant consequences of what's going on directly, rather than spending their evenings watching "Survivor" and speculating about the death of Anna Nicole Smith.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Feb 07 - 10:01 AM

In any case, Teribus, EVERY large modern society wants its people ignorant (in a very selective sense) AND subservient. Specially the latter. Our entire upbringing, our schools, our job training, our military training, our social training...every bit of it is calculated precisely for that purpose: to make people subservient. To make them conform. To make them follow orders. And every child knows this deep in his heart and bitterly resents it.

It's not just a problem in North America, it's a problem everywhere.

Have you never looked within in your entire life? I wonder sometimes.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 12 Feb 07 - 10:04 AM

Tell that to a school teacher.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Feb 07 - 10:13 AM

I feel sorry for school teachers, Dickey, because they're mostly among the most decent, hard-working, and well-intentioned people in society. Do you know how desperately frustrated many of them are with the way the $ySStem forces them to teach children? I do. I talk to them about it. They're my friends. Teachers are also victims of the same system that victimizes each succeeding generation of children.

Every human being wants desperately to be FREE. What primarily stands in his or her way is the hierarchical structure of the organized society around him/her. Its purposes are not to spread freedom, but to control. Mind control, thought control, behaviour control, material control.

Every child knows this intimately. By the time people reach young adulthood, most of them have given in and joined the ranks of the few controllers and the many slaves. They comfort themselves to some extent with their material goods, their food, their drink, their drugs, their sex, and their entertainment....but how many are truly happy and free? Very, very few. Less than 1/2 of one per cent, in my opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Feb 07 - 11:24 AM

"Our entire upbringing, our schools, our job training, our military training, our social training...every bit of it is calculated precisely for that purpose: to make people subservient. To make them conform. To make them follow orders."

Complete and utter crap when considering either the UK/USA/Canada/Australia. Generalisations are odious but taking any of those nations and trying to pin an adjective to collectively describe the population of any one - "subservient" would not feature in my top 100 adjectives.

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 - Again that does not denote subservience.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Feb 07 - 07:34 PM

You may be the living proof, Teribus, that the unexamined life is not worth living. As I suspected, it seems that you have never looked within yourself or within other human beings in your entire existence. Instead, your gaze is fixed upon the phenomena of the outer world. If it can't be touched or measured, it doesn't exist for you.

Too bad. You flunk philosophy and psychology 101. You flunk spirituality, kindergarten level. You seem to have the soul of a pipe wrench.

The Anglo nations are fine. I enjoy living in one of them. But they are not the apotheosis of human culture and accomplishment on this planet. (nor is any other specific culture...they all have some strengths and weaknesses)

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Alba
Date: 12 Feb 07 - 07:46 PM

Little Hawk regarding your 10.13am post to this Thread ..
applause!

Respectfully
Jude

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Feb 07 - 07:54 PM

Thanks, Jude.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 04:35 AM

A breakthrough is currently being reported by the BBC, with a deal for fuel.

LH:
"The Anglo nations are fine. I enjoy living in one of them. But they are not the apotheosis of human culture and accomplishment on this planet."

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.

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.

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Amos
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 12:09 PM

Terib:

Don't be silly.

A

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: 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: 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 - 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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.

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...

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Feb 07 - 08:50 PM

Hate to bring up the dreaded "Saudi Proposal" but seems that the framework within it will one day look very much like the settlement of the current fiasco...

The basis would have provided Isreal with "security" while also providing some mechanisms for dealing with the secritarian feuds if only becuase of it's regionalistic approcah...

Too bad that Bush thought he needed yet another shiney wars to keep his redneck base happy and thus... his redneck administration in power...

But lets get real here... Yeah, Bush would love to have yet another stupid shiney war to keep the NASCAR dads happy but guess what... Even the NASCAR dads ain't impressed with new and shiney wars any more... I'll tell ya what, folks... When you can't ven get the NASCAR dads to support a new and shiney war then you hav some serious problems and...

...Bush has some serious problems but...

...it is encouragin' that Bush has finally seen that NASCAR dads have lost their appitite for war and has now changed course an' looks as if he's now willin' (it's about time...) to try some diplomacy in agreein' to meet with the Iranians and the Syrians...

Hey, it beats the SOS, thank you...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Feb 07 - 11:32 PM

Pssshhhhh! (rolling my eyes) It doesn't flippin' MATTER who refused what in 1948. I am not into settling old grudges here, Bearded Bruce, or proving who is nastier than whom, I'm into respecting the originally established borders of sovereign nations. Israel officially became a sovereign nation in 1948, was recognized as such by the U.N., and I believe that all sides should recognize those borders, and stick to them.

To do otherwise, to allow anyone to go past those original borders and sieze land, is to encourage whoever happens to be stronger at any given time in history to take land that isn't his by force. And you notice that's what they've all been trying to do ever since?

That cannot be allowed as an acceptable principle if you want enduring peace between nations...or the strong nations will always use that principle to beat up on the weak ones.

It's not okay when Saddam does it. It's not okay when Germany does it. Neither is it okay when Israel or China or anyone else does it. I don't care what their excuse is for doing it, either.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Peace
Date: 28 Feb 07 - 11:41 PM

"Israel officially became a sovereign nation in 1948, was recognized as such by the U.N., and I believe that all sides should recognize those borders, and stick to them."

On the 5th of Iyar, 5708, Israel declared itself a State. They were immediately invaded by Iraq, Syria, Transjordan, Lebanon and Egypt. Dream on, LH, dream on. The shit has been happening again and again ever since.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Mar 07 - 10:50 AM

I believe that for a starter as a negotiating ploy the Palestinian Authority has used the pre-Six Day War Borders (1967).

This, however, is only as a temporary settlement, Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran ultimately want the "stain" of Israel erradicated and washed from Arab Lands.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 01 Mar 07 - 01:00 PM

Feb. 27, Guardian Unlimited -

"Hamas has pledged to end missile attacks and violence against Israel, Russia's foreign minister said Tuesday, but the radical Palestinian group's spiritual leader struck a less conciliatory note, saying it was not ready to recognize Israel."

Its a start. Lets hope there will be another step, and another and another.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Mar 07 - 02:04 PM

Everything in politics, life, and existence as we know it is only a temporary settlement. A temporary settlement is far preferable to no settlement at all.

Those who scoff at "temporary settlements" are those who in their hearts want no settlement. Instead, they want nothing less than total victory...or perhaps they just want to keep fighting forever and ever, because it satisfies some emotional need.

This, unfortunately, is a failing of the more extreme zealots on both sides of the Arab/Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

But...it's great for keeping up arms sales! ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Nickhere
Date: 01 Mar 07 - 02:53 PM

"Only a Canadian would think that Cuba has a high quality of life.   When the NBA played some exhibition games over there, the universal remarks from players were about proverty and gruesome conditions.   This from people who for the most part grew up in the low income areas, and gettos in the USA. The NBA players couldn't believe how bad the poverty was in Cuba compared to USA"


Nothing to do with a ridiculous set of US sanctions and boycotts over the last 40 years on Cuba, of course. There might have been some reason for them back during the Bay of Pigs era, but the Cold War is over and the rest of the world has moved on, excpet the USA of course, and Cuba, because the USA won't let it. What threat does Fidel pose to the USA now? Answer, in case you didn't know = none (except that lifting sanctions might hurt the ex-pat Miami Cuban vote of any politician who was brave enough to try reconciliation). I guess the other main reason why the sanctions remain in place is that the USA NEEDS Cuba to be poor, to be a disaster. If it was otherwise, it might prove that socialism can sometimes work and that naked unbridled capitalism isn't the only way forward.

[BTW I'm not saying Cuba isn't tightly controlled by an ageing autocrat, but it would be a lot better off if the sanctions were lifted. If anyone out there really professes to be concerned about Cuba and its poor, you might start by lobbying your politicians to lift the sanctions]

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Nickhere
Date: 01 Mar 07 - 03:23 PM

Teribus: " Hezbollah and Iran ultimately want the "stain" of Israel erradicated and washed from Arab Lands"

Mmmm. It seems the Israelis are currently doing their best to eradicate 'the stain of the Palestinians' from the West Bank, seize their homes and farms and set themselves up in colonies there having displaced the natives. They've even gone as far as building a wall deep into the West Bank in order to mark out their newly acquired land. They build roads all through this annexed country which Palestinians are not allowed to use in any way. Now when the Palestinians try and resist all this disposession, they are called 'terrorists'. In doing so the Israelis have completely ignored two UN security council resolutions: 242 and 338, both of which insist that Israel must withdraw from Arab land seized during the 1967 war, and that continued occupation of that land and transferral of its civilian population into that land, constitues a war crime. Israel would also be currently sitting on a large chunk of southern Lebanon if Hizbullah hadn't stopped them in their tracks. Once again, the Israeli invasion is known as a 'security operation' while the Hizbullah attempt to stop it is known as 'terrorism'. Normally in war, the first casualty they say, is the truth, but in this so-called war on terror, the first casulaty has been the English language. The Israelis are especially adept at dressing their murder, vandalism (as when they bulldoze Palestinian farms and villages) and racism in euphemistic terms, but the truth will always out.

Once again, I'm not saying Iranian, Syrian etc., society is perfect, but let's call a spade a spade here.

This link gives an interesting snippet of life in the West Bank - these were a British film crew, can you imagine what Palestinians have to put up with? Incidentally, I don't agree with many of the comments posted below the film clip - quite a few display a frightening and disturbing level of anti-semitism (in spite of what you pro-Israeli apologists believe, I quite understand the difference between being opposed to the policies of the government of a state and its supporters when they are in flagrant breach of human rights, and being biased against a whole race of people).

British film crew threatened

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: autolycus
Date: 01 Mar 07 - 03:32 PM

Cuba,not to mention Iran and North Korea, are certainly taking their time hitting us with their bats. Eh,beardedbruce?

   I wonder if there's any correspondence between the arguing here and those at top diplomatic and political levels.

   I mean,can we expect them to reach humane accords when we have difficulty while not having weapons,power or vast wealth.





      Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 01 Mar 07 - 04:11 PM

" I quite understand the difference between being opposed to the policies of the government of a state and its supporters when they are in flagrant breach of human rights, and being biased against a whole race of people."

I totally agree with you on that. Unfortunately, there are many who believe that you cannot criticize the Israeli government or the evolution of Zionism. At one time, the U.N. actually equated Zionism with racism. That has changed, however. Here's the latest:

http://www.nysun.com/article/49080

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Mar 07 - 04:14 PM

I've seen the terrible poverty in Cuba. I've seen it also in Mexico and Trinidad. It exists throughout Latin America. The reason Cuba's dire poverty is quoted by conservatives as a proof that Cuba is "bad" while poverty elsewhere in corporate-run Latin America is not even mentioned or spoken of in the same breath, is this: Cuba did not cooperate with grand corporate policy. The other countries did.

Period.

Meanwhile, Cuba has far less crime than those other countries, and far better educational systems for all its citizens and free medical care for all as well.

That's why I like Cuba. They stood up and fought for their rights, just like the American revolutionaries did back in 1776. And they won. So far.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Nickhere
Date: 01 Mar 07 - 08:05 PM

Sure thing, Dinavan. Unfortunately many Zionists seem to believe that two wrongs make a right. Since Jews were persecuted by the Nazis, many Zionists seem to think that gives them the right to treat the Palestinians etc., in a similar way. Ok, so not the gas chambers etc., but remember that Jews were subject to hundreds of petty restrictions and harassments by the Third Reich long before the Nazis got as far as gas chambers. Palestinians suffer many similar harassments today - having to have different colour licence plates on the cars, permits to go anywhere, not allowed to go some places at all: places that were often their homes until a short time ago, their property seized, attacks on the person by Israeli Jewish colonists and the Israeli army, death squads etc., etc.,

You'd think suffering such persecution themselves would make people more sensitive to the trauma of others, but the reverse seems to be the case with many zionists. All criticism of Israeli policy is deflected by the smokescreen of accusations of being a nazi / fascist. A lot of people also make the mistake of assuming that being Jewish automatically means being zionist. This is not the case, and there are many Jews around the world uneasy about, or critical of the Israeli government and its policies. There are Jews within Israel who conduct a far more robust debate about the rights and wrongs of their state than is often permitted outside of it. "Haaretz" is an excellent Israeli paper which gives a lot of space to these discussions.

Haaretz

What is interesting is the regularity with which the Palestine / Israel debate (if you want to call it that) crops up on this and other forums, reagrdless of the original thread topic (in this case Iran / N.Korea) - I think it demonstrates people's conscious or unconscious awareness of the critical importance of the Israel - Palestine question and its centrality in finding a peaceful solution to many of the world's current problems. If an amicable and accepatble solution (to both sides, and therein lies the difficulty) were to be found to this question, many of the other turbulences in the region - and thus the rest of the world, thanks to the ripple effect - would subside. This is one of the reasons the topic interests me so much, apart from a sense of indignation at injustice and human rights abuses.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Peace
Date: 01 Mar 07 - 08:10 PM

Until such time as people are willing to talk about the 'human rights abuses' of Israel AND its surrounding neighbours, there really isn't much to talk about, Nickhere. That's been a problem here as well as other sites. And singling out Israel as the BIGGEST bad guy become counter productive real fast. Your post is an example of that.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Nickhere
Date: 01 Mar 07 - 09:09 PM

No Peace, I don't completely agree with you there. Sure, there are human rights abuses in other Middle Eastern countries too. But -

1) the discussion in the media is largely restricted to abuses which occur in those countries unfriendly or unaligned with US interests,e.g Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan. We do not hear so much about human rights abuses perpetrated in e.g Egypt, Turkey or Uzbekistan - all currently US allies, and places where the CIA has flown 'terror suspects' to be tortured, since they can't quite get away with it on US soil. The Arab world is not as stupid or 'backward' as were are all led to believe, and they know about these things.

2) Israel is heavily supported and bankrolled by the West, America and Britain in particular. That makes it a kind of ambassador for the West in the whole region. Not much point in Western countries coming in to lecture the Arabs on human rights and democracy if they can see our hypocrisy in turning a blind eye to what goes on in Palestine. You must also bear in mind that Israel, while having the smallest population and being one of the smallest countries in the region, has one of the biggest and best equipped armies. This army is frequently used to harass and shoot Palestinians (shooting ducks in a barrel) to which the West turns a blind eye. Arab countries are not stupid, and they see all this. They see Condi say 'not yet, not yet' about a ceasefire while Lebanon is being slowly flattened. It is this gross hypocrisy which is so counter-productive and incesnses Arabs, making them suspicious (with good cause) of any western intervention in the region. It also is counter productive in that our double standards, making them reluctant to accept direction from us on how to run their societies. Would you accept being lectured on your drinking by a guy who shoots up every evening? A more fair, honest and just approach to the Palestinians would produce great peace dividends, not just in Palestine, but across the whole Arab world. That, by definition, will involve some heavy censure of Israel as it stands, a step no politican has been really braveenough to take so far.

While the Arab world is routinely demonised in the Western media - which delivers all kinds of skewed stories in skewed langauge to the public - it is virtually impossible to get any criticism of Israel past the net. If it weren't for forums like this and a few brave journalists, no criticsim of Israel would probably be heard at all. Far from being counter-productive as you claim, threads like this bring some balance to an otherwise badly skewed topic. It is essential if we are to move towards a just and peaceful solution in the Middle East, currently impossible given the level of bias and misinformation in most of our media. Posts like mine are only 'counter-productive' to current Israeli policy, which if it were healthy, would be open to some constructive criticism.

And I might add, I don't remember you ever criticising Israel's human rights record, surely 'not singling out Israel as the biggest bad guy in the region' doesn't equate with maintaining a total silence on their defects? But, my apologies in advance if I wrong you in saying that, as I haven't read all your posts to mudcat obviously, and I'm willing to stand corrected.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Mar 07 - 09:23 PM

Nickhere,

We have Little Hawk wittering on about a return to the UN stipulated 1948 boundaries - Not going to happen, even the Arabs acknowledge that.

By the bye, Nickhere, If you are going to quote me, quote me correctly - "Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran ultimately want the "stain" of Israel erradicated and washed from Arab Lands."

"It seems the Israelis are currently doing their best to eradicate 'the stain of the Palestinians' from the West Bank" - Well Nickhere, history goes against your assertion. Israel has offered deal after deal - all have been rejected. Tell you what Nickhere, you show me where Israel has ever voiced officially, or unofficially, thyeir intent to "eradicate" anything. I, on the otherhand can give you countless examples of publically declared Arab ill intent towards the State of Israel and her population.

As far as the "Wall" goes - Damned effective isn't it?

As far as UN resolutions go Nickhere, there are a few that pre-date those examples you quote that guarantee the right of Israel's existence. Now in order of precedence once those earlier ones have been adhered to I am totally convinced that Israel would return to the 1967 boundaries - It's not going to happen of course, you know that, I know that, the Israeli's know that and the Palestinians know that.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Mar 07 - 09:26 PM

Nickhere, you have just articulated precisely why I often criticize Israel. I feel that I am living in a society where the government and media are grossly prejudicial in their favoritism toward Israel and their failure to bring to bear on Israel the same standards of criticism which they would bring to bear on any other nation doing what Israel does. Israel is allowed to get away with actions that would simply not be tolerated if a Muslim nation did them...such as the 2 invasions of Lebanon...such as the unannounced, undeclared building of a large number of atomic weapons...and such as the occuping and steady colonization of lands outside their own borders...and such as sudden pre-emptive attacks on their neighbours' strategic facilities (I am referring to their attack on Iraq's nuclear research facility).

No other nation is allowed to get away with such aggression...except for one: the USA.

That is the double standard I object to. Israel and the USA apparently have carte blanche to attack any nation they want to, any time they want to, just because they want to. In other words...they're completely above the law. NOBODY else is.

That's what I don't agree with, and that's why I criticize the USA and Israel.

I'm trying to provide a counterbalance to a way out of balance situation that is morally and legally unjustifiable.

I am NOT trying to say that I support or agree with militant Islamic groups who attack Israel. I do NOT support or agree with them.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Peace
Date: 01 Mar 07 - 09:33 PM

If that were true, then you would spend as much time talking about the bad stuff done by the various terrorist organizations supported by various Muslim countries as y'all do about Israel's bad stuff. This "I want to balance the record" stuff looks and sounds like bullshit to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Mar 07 - 09:59 PM

"I'm trying to provide a counterbalance to a way out of balance situation that is morally and legally unjustifiable.

I am NOT trying to say that I support or agree with militant Islamic groups who attack Israel. I do NOT support or agree with them." - Little Hawk.

First paragraph quoted above is laughable.

As for the second, not once has LH critised them, he has always found some half-assed excuse to justify their conduct.

OK LH, a question for you, in the face of the threats and statements made, what would you, as Israel do?

Just to remind you here are some of those threats and statements:

Gamal Abul Nasser - March 8, 1965:
"We shall not enter Palestine with its soil covered in sand. We shall enter it with its soil saturated in blood."

Gamal Abul Nasser, a few months later:
"... the full restoration of the rights of the Palestinian people. In other words, we aim at the destruction of the State of Israel. The immediate aim: perfection of Arab military might. The national aim: the eradication of Israel."

President Abdur Rahman Aref of Iraq, June 4, 1967:
"The existence of Israel is an error which must be rectified. This is our opportunity to wipe out the ignominy which has been with us since 1948. Our goal is clear -- to wipe Israel off the map."

Now who else quite recently voiced their desire that "Israel should be wiped off the map"?

What are the stated long term goals of both Hamas and Hezbollah with regard to the State of Israel?

OK Little Hawk, that is what you have been faced with, that is reality with which you have lived since 1948, what do you regard as your basis for negotiation?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Nickhere
Date: 01 Mar 07 - 10:00 PM

Agreed, LittleHawk.

Teribus - I'm off to bed now (it's well after 2am here and I have to sleep sometime) so I can only give you the briefest of responses.

You say a return to the 1948 boundaries is not going to happen. Of course this raises an obvious question: why not?
We all know the answer I think. Firstly, only western powers like the USA and Britain are going to have any leverage in getting Israel to do anything, and so far they have shown themselves to be spineless hypocrites. As long as the West gives carte blanche to Isrel, of course there won't be any return to 1948 UN-agreed borders.

The second reason is of course, that Israel, during government after government since 1967 has pursued a policy of transplanting its population into colonies in the West Bank seized from Jordan after the latter annexed it first. The West bank was not an orginal part of UN-mandated Israel, it is in effect, land grabbed during war, and as I have only just pointed out a few posts back, Israel is comitting a war crime in colonising it. The land belongs to the Palestinians who lived there in 1967. It is their houses and farms that Israeli colonists are now taking possession of. So if Israel had to withdraw to its 1948 borders, these colonists would either have to leave the land they illegally colonised or accept being part of a Palestinain statelet. Of course there;s not much chance of that happening, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't happen. According to your logic, if you're big and strong and fast enough you can grab what you like and it becomes yours if you can hold on to it. Morality doesn't even come into the frame. Kinda like the 'injuns' I suppose.


As for quoting you correctly, pardon me - I clicked and dragged your line into my text, and missed the word 'Hamas' by mistake. Sorry once again. Now, for the part about Israel never decalring its intention to 'eradicate the stain of etc.,' I'm not so sure about that: I remember seeing such a quote somewhere, though not inexactly those terms. But since I can't lay my hand to it at the moment, I'll give the actual words the benefit of doubt. But do you really need an actual quote? The facts on the ground speak for themselves. In the West Bank Israel is fact driving Palestinians out of their homes, off their farms, destroying their economy etc., etc., Palestinians married to foreigners find their spouses unable to get further permits from the Israelis to stay in the West Bank - effectively forcing the Palestinian partner to leave either the West Bank or their husband / wife. Just about everything Israel can do is being done to get the Palestinians to leave or accept 3rd class citizenship in their own land while their homes and farms all around them are taken over by Jewish Israeli settlers. If Palestinains or lebanese were doing this in Israel, what would you have to say about it? But I'm blue in the face from repeating all this. It seems all thsi violence isn't enough proof for you, you would like someone to say it in an official phrase as well. Whenever did the European colonists of America actually say "we intend to wipe out as many indians as we can and take all their land and shove the few who survive into the poorest parcels of land we can find where they can live as minors unde our regime" (apart from the one who said 'the only good injun is a dead injun)? But isn't that what happened?
Yes, the wall is dammned effective - at breaking up the West Bank into Israeli colonies and fencing Palestinians into the largest open-air prison in the world.

www.theironwall.ps

'Israel offered one peace settlement after another'....hmmmmm. That's not what I've heard. Any 'peace' offered by Israel did no favours to the Palestinians. The Oslo agreement was a swindle on the Palestinians if ever there was one. An ageing, decrepit old man (Arafat) was hooked in on his dream of being the leader of a Palestinian statelet in his lifetime, and so he 'sold his birthright for a mess of pottage' (see the story about Easu and Jacob in the Old Testament for the reference). He got his wish, and the former 'arch-terrorist / Dr.Evil' became the darling of Israeli political society as he turned policeman for them 'controlling his own people' in ways that would make even Shin Bet blush with embarrasment. Small wonder then, that the Palestinians soon saw through this charade and voted for Hamas to represent them.

But like I said, it's late, I have to get to sleep sometime and I've given you enough food for thought. We can come back to it later.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Nickhere
Date: 01 Mar 07 - 10:08 PM

So Peace, when are we going to hear you say a few solemn words about Shin Bet etc.,??

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: bobad
Date: 01 Mar 07 - 10:27 PM

So, a thread whose opening premise is speculation on whether Iran or Korea is to be the next target of the US morphs into yet another anti-Israeli crusade by the usual suspects.

Is anyone else beginning to detect a pattern here?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Peace
Date: 01 Mar 07 - 10:40 PM

Nickhere, I would likely have more to say about Shin Bet than you have any right to know. I am beginning to think you get your info from a Frank Weltner website.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Peace
Date: 01 Mar 07 - 10:52 PM

I am aware that Shin Bet has committed murders. I am also aware that the Muslims you so proudly speak on behalf of have committed murders too. You tend to want to gloss over that, and you were impolite enough not to respond the message I sent you leading me to figure you just play to the crowd. I have nothing more to say to you.

However, I will address your anti-Isreal crap on this thread at any and every opportunity. Until such time as you understand that there are very few innocents left in the middle-East. Not Israel and certainly not any of the organizations you seem to speak for. Regardless how you phrase it all, you have a thinly-disguised hatred of Israel that masquerades as a love of your fellow man, and if you meant any of it you would extend that hatred for Israel to all the killers in the middle-East, including the countries whose stated policies of genocide you seem to be so comfortable with.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Mar 07 - 10:57 PM

It's obvious that we are experiencing a difference in perception as to who is getting the short end of the stick, Peace and Teribus and bobad. That is the only reason we disagree about Israel. I think the Muslims are getting the short end of the stick. Therefore I defend them. You think Israel is getting the short end of the stick. Therefore you defend Israel.

End of story.

It is simply not possible to resolve such a difference in perception. My viewpoint will always seem unfair to you guys, and your viewpoint will always seem unfair to me. It's like trying to resolve a debate in 1876 between people who see Indians as victims of the army and people who see Indians as murdering savages who must be brought to heel by the army. Those arguments were likewise impossible to resolve...and there WERE such arguments at the time. They were very hotly debated in the Eastern press. It was all a matter of perception as to who were the "bad guys" in what was a collision between 2 ways of life. Wrongs happened on both sides.

And that's just the way it is. We perceive different subjective worlds through our deeply subjective beliefs about "who the victims are" and "who the perpetrators are" in the Middle Eastern situation.

And we always will, in all probability. Expect to disagree from here until eternity, guys.

Bobad, remember...one who is paranoid sees enemies everywhere. Correct? But he can always counter that by saying, "Ah, yes! But even paranoids can have REAL enemies!!!"

No doubt they can. But I am not one of them. Your objection to my criticism of Israel reminds me of Black people who raise a ruckus and want someone fired because he used the word "niggardly" (although the word niggardly has absolutely nothing to do with what they think it does...it does not refer to black people in any way whatsoever). "Racism!" they cry. "Anti-semitism!", someone else cries...when Israel is criticized for doing what ANY other country on Earth(except the USA?) would be criticized for doing.

Same deal. It's a kneejerk reaction by someone who has a great big chip on his shoulder...due to past emotional trauma which arose out of past historical events.

I'm afraid that the Muslims have gotten very much like that too in the last few decades...and for quite similar reasons. Like the Jews were in the past many centuries up to the end of WWII, the Muslims since WWII have been stigmatized, robbed, beaten, and kicked around the block for quite some time now...simply for being who they are.

So they're similarly unreasonable about it now, and they are similarly inclined to take violent offence. It makes for a bloody dangerous situation when you have 2 groups of people like that fighting each other. Almost hopeless, I'd say.

I belong to neither group. I consider neither group to be above criticism, just because they...or their grandparents...have suffered.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Peace
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 12:34 AM

"It's obvious that we are experiencing a difference in perception as to who is getting the short end of the stick, Peace and Teribus and bobad. That is the only reason we disagree about Israel. I think the Muslims are getting the short end of the stick. Therefore I defend them. You think Israel is getting the short end of the stick. Therefore you defend Israel.

End of story."

End of the story from you. I happen to agree with what you wrote to that point, but just saying that does not mean that remarks which question the legal right of Israel to exist as a country will pass unrebuked. Or remarks that single out Israel as if it was the only cause of wrong-doing in the mid-East. Maybe you DO support the underdog, but the underdog you presently support has rabies, and they have shown that time and time again.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 02:05 AM

bobad - I believe the first post to mention Israel was 28 Feb 07 - 10:10 AM. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Old grudges die hard and 'poor me' just doesn't work anymore. Ancestral pain contributes nothing to finding a useful solution. How long are you gonna use that as an excuse to inflict suffering on others?

Lets face it. Zionism just aint what it used to be.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 07:25 AM

LH and dianavan,


I feel that I am living in a society where the government and media are grossly prejudicial in their favoritism toward Canada and their failure to bring to bear on Canada the same standards of criticism which they would bring to bear on any other nation doing what Canada does. Canada is allowed to get away with actions that would simply not be tolerated if the US did them...such as the exportation to SE Asia, in violation of international law, of asbestos that is predicted to cause at least 3 million deaths over the next 30 years.

So from now on, ANY mention of the US will be balanced by pointing out the crimes of Canada, and ignoring any admission of any other country's fault.


Or do YOU think that Canada is some kind of special case?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: bobad
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 07:50 AM

"bobad - I believe the first post to mention Israel was 28 Feb 07 - 10:10 AM. Correct me if I'm wrong."

Take a look at LH's first post to the thread on 03 Nov 04 - 10:24 PM .

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Peace
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 10:15 AM

So I guess no one wants to talk about Iran or Korea. Tjis thread is gonna go to shit in a New York minute.

Asbestos? Fuckin' right.
Indians? Fuckin' right.
Patronage in the Prime Minister's office? Fuckin' right.

I have it on good authority that the Canadian Navy sunk the British ship Hood. AND we invaded Grenada. Slag away. Ya can't tell us anything we don't already know. Now, to balance THAT, let me mention a few things about the USA . . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Peace
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 10:21 AM

Canada's involvement with the slaughter at My Lai has come to light. It gets worse. When we dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and then another on Nagasaki, it became evident to the world that a new force had come upon the scene. Our involvement with Oliver North and the weapons for hostages program was--hell, have to go. But I will be back with more history to help BB slag the Canadians.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 10:35 AM

Peace,

Your willingness to have Canada take responsibility for the actions of OTHER countries is admirable. MY point was that if LH HAS to blame Israel, even in a thread discussing Iran and Korea as threats to the US, I fell justified in bringing up the faults of Canada when the faults of the US are being discussed.

Should the thread drift back to the point, I doubt if there would be any mention of Canada OR Israel.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 10:50 AM

http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_ww1_british_mandate.php
http://www.unitedjerusalem.com/Graphics/Maps/PartitionforTransJordan.asp

"In 1923 the British "chopped off" 75% of the proposed Jewish Palestinian homeland to form an Arab Palestinian Nation of "Trans-Jordan," meaning "across the Jordan River." The Palestinian Arabs now had THEIR homeland... the remaining 25% of the original Palestinian territory (west of the Jordan River) was to be the Jewish Palestinian homeland."

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Peace
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 11:46 AM

I get so fuckin' fed up with the Israeli bashing that takes place on Mudcat and the 'some of my best friends are Jewish' bullshit that is used to llok good after expressing oneself as a Jew hater. Many people in Shin Bet deserve to be tried, convicetd and shot for their actions. About that there is no question. So do some members of the IRA, people from Nickhere's country. And some members of SAS, GSG9, your country's military and mine. But the people here who think that the Muslim countries who have sworn themselves to eradicate/exterminate the Israelis are on the side of right have their heads so far up their asses they should fuckin' choke. I have lost a few friends over this issue. I expect I will lose a few more. Such is life.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 11:53 AM

You're right, bobad, I didn't realize this thread went so far back. I suppose its difficult to discuss Iran and the U.S. without discussing Israel. I know that Israel is a nation onto itself but lets face it, the U.S. and Israel have been hand in glove since its inception. Now that I think about it, its as if the U.S. has a colony in the Middle East.

Don't get me wrong, I think a Jewish homeland is not such a bad idea but I do think that the process of creating it was ass-backwards. It could have been established by the Sephardic Jews (at least those that were familiar with the customs and traditions of the Middle East). Part of the problem has been the large influx of European Jews and the push toward 'modernization' and a way of life stronly influenced by the West. It would probably have gone more smoothly if the immigrants had to adjust to a Middle Eastern way of life instead of the other way around. I know I'm sticking my neck out by saying this but at least I can't be accused of being an anti-Semite.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: bobad
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 12:14 PM

"if the immigrants had to adjust to a Middle Eastern way of life instead of the other way around"

Just as the Europeans did when they came to North America.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 12:31 PM

I have never objected to your criticisms of Canada, BB. Why do you object to my criticims of the USA and Israel? ;-) I think your assertion that Canada gets a bigger break in the international media than the USA is an interesting one, and probably true. If so, that is primarily because Canada has a much smaller effect on most of the world than the USA does or than Israel does.

Canada, thus, doesn't get noticed all that much, and it gets away with things like its horrible asbestos wrongdoings! Well, I'll try to see what I can do about that, but I think it's a situation beyond my control or influence, frankly... ;-)

By all means, BB, feel free to mention Canadian international wrongdoings all you want. It doesn't upset me if you do. I do not believe in the old adage: "my country, right or wrong".

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 12:42 PM

Look at it this way...

I'm white!

I'm male!

I belong to no historically persecuted or visible minority!

I'm reasonably well off financially!

I'm Canadian!!! Oh, the horror. The horror.

Imagine the incredible burden of collective guilt by association that I must carry and live with every day.........!

It ain't easy, but I somehow carry on regardless. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 12:43 PM

No, bobad, not exactly.

You see, there were no Europeans in N.A. but there were Jews in the Middle East.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 02:23 PM

LH,

And Canada gave us ... Shatner!

The world can never forgive you.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Nickhere
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 02:38 PM

Ok Peace, let's get to grips with some of your quotes.

1:" Nickhere, I would likely have more to say about Shin Bet than you have any right to know. I am beginning to think you get your info from a Frank Weltner website".

Peace, are you implying you are / were a member of Shin Bet? That's what it sounds like. At least it would explain your blind faith in Israeli good intentions. As for Frank wots-his-name, never heard of him or his website.
I see you do get some of your information from the < palestinefacts website >.... the website set up by the Israeli ministry of foreign affairs to give their spin to things. But that's ok, everyone's voice is entitled to be heard, isn't it?

2: "I am aware that Shin Bet has committed murders. I am also aware that the Muslims you so proudly speak on behalf of have committed murders too. You tend to want to gloss over that, and you were impolite enough not to respond the message I sent you leading me to figure you just play to the crowd"

Maybe you're backpedalling now, maybe you're with Mossad? Well, only you know, for the moment. Anyway, yes there are members of the IRA who should be put on trial, but in the end the people north and south voted and decided to let bygones by bygones and all crimes deemed to have been poliutical - which includes a large number of crimes by pro-British loyalists - go untried in the name of peace and progress. The difference is that unlike Palestine, there is an attempt to build a self-governing entity at least. Also interesting is that you always seem to qualify Israeli violence with either "Yes, but it's justified self-defence" or "yes, but what about MUSLIM violence?"

You are also mistaken in your belief that I speak 'proudly' for Arabs. Maybe you don't fully understand what I wrote in earlier posts - that in order to lecture Muslims on how to behave, we - the west - needs to be above fault itself. Israel is the main representative of the West in the Middle East.

I am impolite?? What message did you post that I did not respond to (not that there's much point in answering it now that you've gone into your room in sulk and refuse to speak to me)? Bear in mind also that I can't reply to everything, though as I'm sure you all know, I do my best. I have been slagged by Slag in the past for not being brief enough!


3: "If that were true, then you would spend as much time talking about the bad stuff done by the various terrorist organizations supported by various Muslim countries as y'all do about Israel's bad stuff. This "I want to balance the record" stuff looks and sounds like bullshit to me"

I was going to ask you what you meant by that. If you don't believe that LH or I or others criticise Israeli policy for the reasons we gave, then what do you believe our motivations to be? But i think you answered that already:

"However, I will address your anti-Isreal crap on this thread at any and every opportunity. Until such time as you understand that there are very few innocents left in the middle-East. Not Israel and certainly not any of the organizations you seem to speak for. Regardless how you phrase it all, you have a thinly-disguised hatred of Israel that masquerades as a love of your fellow man, and if you meant any of it you would extend that hatred for Israel to all the killers in the middle-East, including the countries whose stated policies of genocide you seem to be so comfortable with"

Anti-Israeli crap. Hatred of Israel. Ahhh, so now we get down to the nub of it. You think I am anti-semitic, don't you? You think, in spite of all I said about the need to have our own house in order first, that I'm simply anti-Israel, presumably because Jews live there.

That raises another question - even assuming what you think is true (and it isn't) where does that leave Jews who are critical of Israel (and there are quite a few)? Are they anti-semitic too? And where does that leave you? Since you have never been able to bring yourself to criticise Israel much without offering (to borrow from Teribus) 'lame-assed excuses' for their behaviour, and have rarely had a good word to say about the Arabs, then according to your own own criteria you are an anti-Arab racist, aren't you?

"But the people here who think that the Muslim countries who have sworn themselves to eradicate/exterminate the Israelis are on the side of right have their heads so far up their asses they should fuckin' choke"

OK, I think I've said this before, but just to be clear I'll write it in big letters to make it easier to read and understand:

I DO NOT THINK THAT IT'S ALRIGHT FOR MUSLIM COUNTRIES TO SWEAR TO EXTERMINATE THE ISRAELIS. I ABSOLUTELY DISGAREE WITH IT. NOR DO I BELIEVE IT'S OK TO BLOW YOURSELF UP ON A BUS FULL OF CIVILIANS OR FIRE A ROCKET INTO A CIVILIAN HOUSE. SO THAT'S THE MUSLIM SIDE. BUT I AM NOT A MUSLIM OR AN ARAB. I AM A 'WESTERNER' - ARE ONLY ARABS TO BE CONDEMNED?

Now, in smaller letters - Peace, when are you going to bring yourself to condemn what Israel is doing in the West Bank that's in contravention of the 4th Geneva Convention, Article 49, Hague Resolutions, UN Resolutions 242, 338 etc., etc., and please spare me the bulls**t of saying "Yes, but the OTHER side must respect theire resolutions first!"

And if you don't understand that, let's put it another way:

Q: Do you think that Israel's policies in colonising the West Bank in contravention of International Law and with the resulting disposession and murder of the the native Palestinian people is acceptable?

Q2: Do you think that this policy has any effect on the levels of violence and tension in the middle east?

Q3: Since you believe (as I do) in the right of the Jewish people to have a place to call home and lay their hat, do you also believe in the right of the West Bank and Gazan Palestinians to a Palestinian state?
(Israel was created by drawing a pen around a map. The same can be done for the Palestinians)

So you say we have nothing to talk about and you won't talk to me anymore, but you'll respond to any of my posts that don't say the sun shines out of Israel's ass. That sounds like we'll be doing a lot more talking so in the future.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Peace
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 02:43 PM

I no longer have anything to say to you, Nickhere. Piss off.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Peace
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 02:45 PM

"Peace, are you implying you are / were a member of Shin Bet? That's what it sounds like." Your inferences are yours; that was not my implication. Simply put, I find you to be a prig. Kindly talk with someone else.

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

Nickhere,


"I see you do get some of your information from the < palestinefacts website >."

Point of information- I was the one who posted that address.

I looked for maps of Israel on the Palestinian sites, but they do not acknowledge that it exists.


And what would you say about the Jews who were removed c.1948 to 1967 from the West Bank? (When it was under the control of Jordan, who made NO effort to provide a state for their Palestinian brothers.
Jordan agreed that the border was basically the Jordan river ( with minor exceptions ) between Israel and Jordan.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Peace
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 05:31 PM

"In a stunning reversal of hardline foreign policy, the Bush administration has announced it will engage in diplomatic talks with Iran and Syria in an effort to stabilize Iraq.

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice announced the policy back flip at a hearing of the US Senate Appropriations Committee on Tuesday, which is considering the Bush administration's request for $100 billion to continue its operations in Iraq and Afghanistan."

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 05:57 PM

BB - Yes! I am only too keenly aware that it was Canada which inflicted William Shatner on an unsuspecting world. (sob!) The humiliation and deeply suppressed guilt feelings that I and most other Canadians feel over this...this almost unspeakable fact...in time drove me to conceal my true feelings by pretending to admire the man...if not worship him. This was the sort of emotional reversal that can take place when a person is under extreme stress. It was only later that I discovered that Shatner is Jewish, and so too is Leonard Nimoy. Then too, my musical hero Bob Dylan is Jewish. Could it be that my negative assessment of Israeli policies is connected somehow to my denial of the fact that Shatner is...well...less than perfect?????

Disturbing questions to ponder indeed. I fear that only a number of lengthy sessions on the couch of Herr Doktor Liebenscheiss will suffice to put these contradictions to rest.

In the meantime, I will attempt to get back to discussing Iran and Korea and the USA on this thread...and try, by hook or by crook, to avoid the thorny subject of Israel.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Nickhere
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 06:57 PM

Beardedbruce: "And what would you say about the Jews who were removed c.1948 to 1967 from the West Bank? (When it was under the control of Jordan, who made NO effort to provide a state for their Palestinian brothers.
Jordan agreed that the border was basically the Jordan river ( with minor exceptions ) between Israel and Jordan"

Absolutely - I quite agree with you. Jordan did nothing for the Palestinians either. I believe they simply wanted to annex the West Bank for themselves. But it's not Jordan that the Palestinians have to deal with now.

Peace: no, I won't piss off.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Peace
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 07:04 PM

Seems evident in terms of the thread's title that Iran is more likely to be next. But it also seems that Bush needs cooperation from many other countries before he can do anything.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Peace
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 07:05 PM

I don't give a rat's ass what you do, N, just don't address me.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Peace
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 07:30 PM

The Security Council of the UN is talking about a second round of sanctions, but the talk coming from Ahmadinejad indicates it won't matter squat anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Mar 07 - 04:49 AM

LH, a question for you, in the face of the threats and statements made, what would you, as Israel do?

Just to remind you here are some of those threats and statements:

Gamal Abul Nasser - March 8, 1965:
"We shall not enter Palestine with its soil covered in sand. We shall enter it with its soil saturated in blood."

Gamal Abul Nasser, a few months later:
"... the full restoration of the rights of the Palestinian people. In other words, we aim at the destruction of the State of Israel. The immediate aim: perfection of Arab military might. The national aim: the eradication of Israel."

President Abdur Rahman Aref of Iraq, June 4, 1967:
"The existence of Israel is an error which must be rectified. This is our opportunity to wipe out the ignominy which has been with us since 1948. Our goal is clear -- to wipe Israel off the map."

Now who else quite recently voiced their desire that "Israel should be wiped off the map"?

What are the stated long term goals of both Hamas and Hezbollah with regard to the State of Israel?

OK Little Hawk, that is what you have been faced with, that is reality with which you have lived since 1948, what do you regard as your basis for negotiation?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Mar 07 - 01:55 PM

Teribus, are you not aware that I recently indicated a few posts back that I wasn't going to talk further about Israel on this thread? I am doing that partly to spare the feelings of certain friends of mine here who don't see Israel in the same light as I do.

If you want to discuss Israel further with me, PM me.

I'm waiting...

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Mar 07 - 07:52 PM

As I thought LH, you spout complete and utter shite on the forum and when faced with a question, all of a sudden it becomes too sensitive for public discussion.

You are exceedingly good at knocking things (primarily the US and Israel), you have no original ideas, you can offer no solutions. While you can see your way to justifying the murderous actions of terrorists, you have got no idea as to how those faced with a terrorist threat that demands their complete and utter annihilation can even attempt to open any form of negotiation.

By the bye LH look at what Osama has said (prior to 911) you will find that the US is in the same frame. Get real, wake up, smell the coffee - There is no negotiation with these people, you are in a war, you have been since the early 1990's, long before GWB became President of the United States of America. Your enemies demand your unconditional surrender, conversion to Islam and adoption of Sharia Law. All GWB did was to take the battle to them, and ever since they have been suffering.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Peace
Date: 03 Mar 07 - 08:00 PM

Guys: LH has said that he'd keep his posts here to the Iran/Korea thing. He will, because that's the kind of man he is. He and I disagree vehemently on Israel/Arab conflict, but despite that, he's not a 'friend' I've lost over the issue. IMO, it would be good to let it pass. I hope you can see clear to agree with that, Teribus. Becaiuse despite that I agree with YOU on this, it just isn't worth the heartache to watch two people I really like go at each other on a thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Mar 07 - 08:06 PM

Well, I don't know why LH feels that he can't answer yer questions, Terrible, but he is a man of honesty an' if he can't discuss this he can't... He has offered you an avenue for the two of you to hash it out privately... No grandstanding... Jus' an avenue...

If you have made the choice not to engage LH on this subject thru PM's then I can opnly think that you care more about grandstanding...
What am I missing here???

As for my own opinion which of course you won't read because you think my arguments are weak and bigoted is that, as per usual, there is a lot of postruing in the Middle East... But, hey, it is the Middle Esat and folks in the Middle East love posturing and bluffing and all that kind of stuff...

Ask me how I know...

Well, I've had business dealings with Saudis, Kuwaitis and Palestinians an' for folks who haven't: lucky yous... These folsk is so full of it that this explains why all of 'um have brown eyes... It backs up that far...

So, when I hear anyone from that region sayin' anything I think to myself, "Liar", which, of course, is a well honored behavior in the Middle East... Lieing, that is... The kids are taught very early how to out lie their school mates and their brothers...

Okay, maybe Terrible is right... Maybe I am a bigot 'cause of these observations???

(Ouch, I've hurt my head and now must lie down an' take a nap...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Nickhere
Date: 04 Mar 07 - 10:40 AM

Hi Bobert - I've had lots of dealings with people from middle east as well....all corners of it. I'm not sure what kind of dealings you had, obviously, but to call them all liars on the basis of the ones you've met seems a bit too much. Liars can be found everywhere. I'm sure you'l agree there's good and bad to be everywhere!

Peace - you only 'lose' the 'friends' you want to - just because you disgaree with someone doesn't mean that also have to start hating them - that would imply you only like and are friends with people who agree with you. As for having a go at people - may I remind you that you started having a go at me simply because I didn't agree with you and asked you a few of the same kind of quetsions that you ask too. Was there any other reason? I didn't see your PM until after you said I was 'impolite' etc., That ever occur to you?

Teribus - I'm willing to try answering your questions and asking a few of my own as well, cos this is an area that has started to fascinate me of late.
But in deference to the thread this is, I'll start a new one so we can discuss the topic openly.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 03:22 PM

VIENNA, Austria (Reuters) -- Iran's persistent failure to clear up concerns about its nuclear activities after concealing them for almost 20 years sets it apart from all other nations, the U.N. atomic watchdog chief said on Monday.

Six world powers are now negotiating on widening sanctions against Iran for pressing ahead with its program to enrich uranium, a possible route to building atomic bombs, and ignoring a February 21 U.N. Security Council deadline for it to stop.

"Iran's verification case is sui generis (one of a kind)," Mohamed ElBaradei, director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said in opening remarks to a gathering of the IAEA's 35-nation board of governors.

"Unlike other verification cases, the IAEA's confidence about the nature of Iran's program has been shaken because of two decades of undeclared activities (until 2003)," he said.

"This confidence will only be restored when Iran takes the long overdue decision to explain and answer all the agency's questions and concerns about its past nuclear activities in an open and transparent manner."

Iran rejects Western suspicions that it is trying to master nuclear bomb technology under the cover of a civilian atomic energy program, saying it only wants to generate electricity.

Tehran has also complained of unfair treatment, noting the IAEA has found no hard evidence of covert bomb making efforts. It has characterized sanctions as a U.S.-led campaign to stunt its economic development and topple its government.

"We have not seen concrete proof of diversion of nuclear material, nor the industrial capacity to produce weapons-usable nuclear material, which is an important consideration in assessing the risk," said ElBaradei.

"But quite a few uncertainties remain about experiments, procurements and other activities ..." Iran's IAEA envoy, Ali Asghar Soltanieh, said it would never cede "its inalienable right" to enrichment but was prepared to resolve outstanding issues "if our nuclear dossier is returned (by the Security Council) to the IAEA where it belongs."

Cuts in nuclear aid
At the meeting likely to run some four days, governors were expected to approve cuts to 22 of 55 IAEA technical aid projects in Iran. This would uphold a December U.N. ban on giving Iran technology and know-how of use in making atomic fuel.

A February 22 IAEA report said Iran was installing cascades, or networks, of 164 centrifuges each in its underground uranium enrichment plant in a bid to graduate from research-level refinement of nuclear fuel to a basis for "industrial-scale" production, with some 3,000 centrifuges due to be set up by May.

But ElBaradei said Iran apparently had not begun pumping uranium gas into cascades in the vast Natanz bunker complex, as it said it would start doing by the end of February.

"While there is concern about Iran's future intentions, the situation today is still very much R&D (research and development) activities," he told reporters.

ElBaradei praised an apparent nuclear climb-down by North Korea, whose own confrontation with the world eased when it agreed on February 13 to dismantle its nuclear arms program and readmit IAEA inspectors expelled four years ago.

"I welcome the Beijing agreement, and the invitation to visit North Korea, as positive steps toward the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula and towards the normalization of North Korea's relationship with the agency," he told the board.

ElBaradei goes to Pyongyang on March 13 to work out details of the nuclear shutdown and redeploying inspectors by mid-April to ensure the secretive Stalinist state upholds the pact.

"This process has to be completed within 60 days so we have a short time span (to achieve it) ...," he said.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Peace
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 10:13 PM

Nickhere--for the last time, I have NOTHING more to say to you.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Nickhere
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 07:52 PM

Suit yourself. But you have said you will reply to my posts about Israel /palestine - which is effectively the same as talking to me; except it will be as in "Tell your father to pass the salt" "Tell your mother she can get it herself" which will look ridiculous.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Donuel
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 10:08 PM

Propoganda regarding Syria's threat to use bio weapons (possibly small pox) in the event that Iran is invaded by the US is currently making the rounds by people like Matt Drudge.

Be it Rovian, Cheneyesque or Rumsfeldian fear propoganda or simply true, it may reach the shores of mainstream media next month.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 10:37 PM

Marvelous. Isn't it hilarious that the most powerful and heavily armed country in the world, the biggest aggressor nation, the one that attacks other people whenever they have something it wants and they won't cooperate, tells its own public that IT is the one being threatened? How outrageous. You know who their next target of choice is, when they say "those people are a threat".

Its the most blatant case of a wolf calling its next prey a wolf that I have seen in modern times.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 12:00 PM

Iran threatens 'illegal' nuke work
POSTED: 11:54 a.m. EDT, March 21, 2007

Story Highlights• Khamenei warns Iran will pursue nuclear activities outside international law
• Leader also warns Iran will retaliate if attacked
• Iran accused of using atomic program as a cover to build nuclear weapons

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- Iran's top leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei warned on Wednesday that the country will pursue nuclear activities outside international regulations if the U.N. Security Council insists it stop uranium enrichment.

"Until today, what we have done has been in accordance with international regulations," Khamenei said. "But if they take illegal actions, we too can take illegal actions and will do so."

Khamenei did not elaborate what "illegal actions" could be pursued by Tehran as it faces new sanctions by the U.N. body over its refusal to halt enrichment which the West fears is used for arms making.

Iran's top leader also issued a stark warning to the United States, saying Iran will "use all its capacities to strike" its enemies if his country is attacked.

"If they want to treat us with threats and enforcement of coercion and violence, undoubtedly they must know that the Iranian nation and authorities will use all their capacities to strike enemies that attack," Khamenei told the nation in an address marking the first day of Nowruz, or the Persian New Year.

The top five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council have drawn up new sanctions meant to punish Iran for rejecting U.N. demands it halt the controversial enrichment -- a key process that can produce fuel for a reactor or the material for a nuclear warhead.

Khamenei said sanctions against Iran had not worked in the past and more could instead have the opposite effect on a nation that wants to benefit from nuclear power because "one day oil will dry up."

"We achieved nuclear (technology) amid sanctions. Sanctions may even, under circumstances, come to our benefit since they create more motivation for us," he added.

The U.S. and some of its allies accuse Iran of using its nuclear program as a cover to build nuclear weapons. Tehran has denies the charges, saying its nuclear program is merely geared toward generating electricity, not bomb.

Iranian is a signatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty -- the agreement under which the U.N. inspections are held.

"The Iranian nation needs nuclear energy for life, not weapons," Khamenei said.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 01:04 PM

"The Iranian nation needs nuclear energy for life, not weapons," Khamenei said.

Makes sense to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 01:32 PM

Ah, well that's alright then Dianavan. By the bye is there any particular reason that they wanted to keep this desire for life secret?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 01:52 PM

'Iran's representative asserted that its peaceful nuclear programme posed no threat to international peace and security, and, therefore, dealing with the issue in the Security Council was unwarranted and void of any legal basis or practical utility. Far from reflecting the international community's concerns, the sponsors' approach flouted the stated position of the overwhelming majority of Member States. Today's action by the Council, which was the culmination of efforts aimed at making the suspension of uranium enrichment mandatory, violated international law, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and IAEA resolutions. It also ran counter to the views of the majority of United Nations Member States, which the Council was obliged to represent. The sole reason for pushing the Council to take action was that Iran had decided, after over two years of negotiations, to resume the exercise of its inalienable right to nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, by partially reopening its fully safeguarded facilities and ending a voluntary suspension.



Iran's right to enrich uranium was recognized under the NPT, he said. And, upholding the right of State parties to international regimes was as essential as ensuring respect for their obligations. Those regimes, including the NPT, were sustained by a balance between rights and obligations. Threats would not sustain the NPT or other international regimes, but ensuring that members could draw rightful benefits from membership, and that non-members were not rewarded for their intransigence, did. Yet, today, the world was witnessing a dangerous trend. While members of the NPT were denied their rights and punished, those who defied the NPT, particularly the perpetrators of the current carnage in Lebanon and Palestine, were rewarded by generous nuclear cooperation agreements. "This is one awkward way to safeguard the NPT or ensure its universality", he said.'

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/sc8792.doc.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 02:20 PM

At least Switzerland is willing to negotiate.

"The proposal was that Iran would be permitted to keep its current uranium enrichment infrastructure of several hundred centrifuges. Iran could run the centrifuges but would not feed any processed uranium hexafluoride (UF6) into them while negotiating a package of incentives with six world powers."

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L21525348.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 03:28 PM

Iran is doing exactly what any other sovereign nation would do if conducting a domestic nuclear power program to generate electricity and being told that they cannot enrich unranium because they might use it to build nuclear weapons. Building nuclear weapons is NOT the only reason for enriching uranium.

Iran is being asked to prove that it doesn't have nukes and doesn't intend to build any. You cannot prove a negative.

In the same way, Saddam was asked to prove he didn't have WMDs. He could not prove a negative either. He was like a fish in a barrel...nothing he could do would have stopped the US attack in 2003.

The USA normally does this when they want an excuse to attack someone...they ask their next target to prove a negative...which can't be done. It's the perfect catch-22. The target can struggle all they want, but they can't prove that they don't have something which the USA says they do, and they can't prove that they don't have intentions which the USA says they do.

"• Leader also warns Iran will retaliate if attacked"

Gosh! How awful of them!!! ;-) Look, who the hell does NOT retaliate if attacked? Who does not warn he will retaliate if attacked?

Iran has something the USA wants, but is not cooperating with American corporate planning, and non-cooperation is simply not accepted by the Superpower any more than it is by a local Mafia boss. Therefore Iran is now a target, and has been ever since 1979. The present propaganda campaign by America and Israel is geared to make people think that Iran is so dangerous, so scary, that they must be attacked without delay (same tired old propaganda technique that was used to attack Iraq in 2003). Therefore, they are asked to prove a negative....that they DON'T have nukes or plans to build nukes. You cannot prove a negative. If you don't have such things or any plans for them...and if you say so...the USA can just accuse you of lying, after all. And that's what happens. It is justification of war not on the basis of any actual provocation, but on the basis of innuendo.

It becomes more and more likely under such outside pressure that Iran will eventually decide it must acquire nuclear weapons simply as a matter of self-defence. If so, the USA accusation will become a self-fulfilling prophecy. However, the ayatollahs have always opposed the idea of developing nuclear weapons, considering such weapons to be "un-Islamic".

I wouldn't want to bet either way on how this one will turn out...

Is it possible that Iran wants to build nukes and is enriching uranium for that purpose? Yes. Is it proven? No. Is the burden of proof on the accusers? Yes. Even if it were proven, would that then be justification for a pre-emptive attack on Iran? Hell, no! No one has the right to pre-emptively attack another country just because that country has or is building some kind of weapon.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 07:24 PM

See you ducked the question dianavan - thought that you would.

More crap from Little Hawk, except in his latest tirade he has managed some absolute howlers. My favourite is this one:

"Leader also warns Iran will retaliate if attacked"

Gosh! How awful of them!!! ;-) Look, who the hell does NOT retaliate if attacked? Who does not warn he will retaliate if attacked?"

Judging by your earlier posts Little Hawk, Israel is not allowed to retaliate if attacked, but, according to you, that is an option open to others (i.e. the ones you approve of).

Read last November's IAEA Report on Iran's nuclear programme LH - you should.

A few things that tend to get in yours and dianavan's claims for Iranian credibility:

- If you are a signatory of the Nuclear NPT you are not allowed to pursue the development and aquisition of nuclear weapons.

"Even if it were proven, would that then be justification for a pre-emptive attack on Iran? Hell, no!" - Little Hawk.

Hell Yes, if someone had done something about Hitlers secret weapons development, construction and training programmes in 1935 WWII would not have happened.

- Why were the enrichment facilities built in secret?

- Why are the Iranians buying the type of centrifuges that enrich uranium way beyond the level required for fuel.

- Why are the Iranians buying those types of centrifuges in sufficient numbers to greatly accelerate enrichment.

- Why are the Iranians modifying and developing IRBM's capable of carrying nuclear warheads.

Absolutely dianavan, totally peaceful, nothing to worry about at all. You have got to be joking!!

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 08:00 PM

"- If you are a signatory of the Nuclear NPT you are not allowed to pursue the development and aquisition of nuclear weapons."

Correct. However, no one has proven that Iran IS pursuing the development and acquisition of nuclear weapons, and Iran, unlike North Korea, has stated over and over again that they are not doing so. So, what if the USA is lying when they say that they believe Iran is pursuing the development and acquisition of nuclear weapons? Or what if the USA is mistaken when they say that?

All people ARE allowed to retaliate to attack, Teribus, but in a reasonably proportionate manner. Israel's invasions of Lebanon were both totally out of proportion to anything that paramilitary forces in Lebanon had done to Israel. It would have been a proportionate response on Israel's part to counterfire rocket launchings with return fire from artillery and to make surgical airstrikes on the rocket launching positions. It was completely disproportionate, however, to launch a fullscale invasion of southern Lebanon.

I do not hold a particularly high estimation of Iranian credibility, Teribus, but neither do I hold a high estimation of American or Israeli credibility. They all are capable of lying and misleading in order to achieve desired objectives. I don't feel that any of them have a right to launch pre-emptive attacks on any other country, nor to answer a minor provocation with a fullscale war. If they do so, they're doing it not for legitimate defence, but for their own gain.

I think it's entirely possible that Iran is secretly building or preparing to build nukes. It wouldn't surprise me. If they were, however, I would not regard it as a legitimate reason for attacking them. No one has the moral or legal right to attack first. You must realize, Teribus, that were the USA or Israel in Iran's position vis-a-vis more powerful enemies already armed with a great many nuclear weapons and they with no nukes of their own, they would most certainly move heaven and earth to build nukes, they would do it secretly and illegally if they had to, and they would do it without delay.

The fact is, the Israelis already did that. A long time ago. The problem with America and Israel in regards to the rest of the world is this: they always seem to think that it's okay for them to do things that no one else (except maybe the UK) is allowed to do. Well, they must be very, very special people, eh? You have to be extra-special to be granted legal and moral exemptions that no one else gets.

Is it any surprise that the rest of the world doesn't buy it, and sees a double standard in effect?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: DougR
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 08:00 PM

The Isle of Capri.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Nickhere
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 09:23 PM

"Hell Yes, if someone had done something about Hitler's secret weapons development, construction and training programmes in 1935 WWII would not have happened"

Or if the Manhattan project had been stopped over quarter of a million Japanese civilians might have lived out their full lives......the Cold War might not have happened.....Stalin might have overrun Europe.....all kinds of things are possible with speculative history.

Trouble is, change one detail and you change the whole of history completely. If you are a fan of science fiction you will be familiar with this concept. Actually it's impossible to say for sure what would have happened instead, history is simply not reducible to simple cause-and-effect.

Launch an attack on Iran and occupy it like you've done Iraq, and you might instead succed in widening an Islamic-led war against the west, and perhaps succeed in pissing off the Chinese (customers of Iran) and Russians so much that you precipitate the slide into WW3.

And as the saying goes, WW3 may be fought with robots and nukes, but WW4 will be fought with sticks and stones....

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 09:58 PM

The more sensible approach to stopping Hitler would have been to confront him with much harder-nosed and more determined political responses from Britain and France in the mid-to-late 30s. For instance, had the British and French stood by Czechoslovakia the way they did later by Poland, and had the Czechs been resolved to fight in '38 rather than cede one square mile of land to the Reich...one of the following 2 things would have happened.

1. Hitler would have backed down. Or more likely...

2. He would not have backed down, and the Wehrmacht would have immediately staged a coup and arrested Hitler, Goering, Goebbels, Himmler and the whole rotten lot of Nazi chiefs and that would have put an end to it right there. The German Army generals had already decided among themselves that if the Czechs were resolved to fight then they would take matters into their own hands, disobey the invasion orders, and arrest Hitler. Their reason? They knew that the German army was simply not ready yet for war in 1938, and that it would lead to a national disaster.

The Czech crisis was really the last chance to stop Hitler's war. The British and French failed to act with resolve and they abandoned the Czechs. Then the Czechs also lost resolve and caved in. That set the stage for all the rest that followed. Hitler was so emboldened by his success in annexing Czechoslovakia and "beating the odds" that he felt unstoppable after that, and the traditional general staff of the German Army had lost its last great psychological opportunity to depose the irresponsible little corporal and nip the Nazi experiment in the bud.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Barry Finn
Date: 22 Mar 07 - 01:31 AM

Which is what the US should do with Bush, Rummey, Rice, the Wolf, Cheney & others! Arrest them before the start of WWIII. I've stated that the US will invade Iran & Syria in the near future back when we were invading Iraq & I still have no doubt as to it's intention. Iran would do well if it has a weapon that will deter this from happening, I would in their position. I also believe that if Israel allowed inspectors within it's borders to find suspected nuclear weapons that Iran would be more willing to do the same, at least it's a worthwile point. But even to push aside the treat of the possibly of a WWIII Israel wound not, IMO allow weapons inspectors within their borders. If Israel won't why should Iran? They are more suspect than Iran is of having Nukes, Iran is only suspect in trying to develop them.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Stephen L. Rich
Date: 22 Mar 07 - 01:45 AM

Who's Next? Iran or Korea?

Neither! Bush will be sending troops to Chicago. It's been held by Democrats for far too long. It's time for a regime change.

Stephen Lee

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Mar 07 - 10:16 AM

LH,

You ignore the fact that Iran signed the NPT, and took advantage of the assistance it offers to build its nuclear program in the first place.

Israel DID NOT sign the NPT.

If your belief is that nations have no resposibility to honor their treaty commitments, and should not be held accountable for them, please say so.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Mar 07 - 11:26 AM

I'm not impressed much by misleading legalese, BB, which is what these arguments often swirl around. I'm impressed by realities. Israel really has nuclear weapons, but won't admit to it officially. The obvious reason that Israel is not a signatory to the NPT is that it was was specifically arranged that way by Israel and the USA so that Israel can maintain silence about the reality of the situation. That was legal chicanery, intended to exempt Israel from what others are not exempted from. Israel should be held to the same international standard as other countries, which is to say, Israel should be required to reveal its WMDs if other people are required to. No double standard.

What could they possibly lose BY revealing what everyone already knows anyway???? Would their pride be hurt? I don't think anyone is going to try and take their nukes away... LOL!

Furthermore, no country should be expected to prove a negative proposition, meaning Iraq should not have been required in 2003 to prove it did NOT have WMDs (which is impossible to prove), nor should Iran. The burden of proof is upon those who say something does exist. They have to prove it does. If they can't prove it, they have no case, because then it's all just innuendo, and you cannot convict someone in a court of law based upon innuendo. You need proof of guilt, not just rumors of guilt spread by the prosecution.

Barry Finn is exactly right in his points regarding Israel and Iran. No double standard. If Iran must submit to international inspection of all its secret facilities, then so must Israel. That would be fair. That would be equitable. If Iran is to be attacked for not submitting to international inspection, then so must Israel be attacked for not submitting to the same. No double standard.

Heh! But I should live so long as to see that happen... ;-) I am well aware that I live in a society and in a world which does not treat all people in an equal fashion...despite its pretensions of democracy and moral rectitude.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Mar 07 - 01:19 PM

Little Hawk, Dianavan, the questions that you have failed to address:

- Why were Iran's uranium enrichment facilities built in secret? The IAEA only got to know about them because a group of dissident Iranians led them to the sites.

- Why are the Iranians buying the type of centrifuges that enrich uranium way beyond the level required for fuel? Enrichment for fuel I believe is about 19% enriched, for weapons grade material I think it is about 96%, the Iranians have gone for P2 centifuges that cascaded will produce the latter.

- Why are the Iranians buying those types (P2's) of centrifuges in sufficient numbers to greatly accelerate enrichment? To configure the cascades required to produce weapons grade material would seem a highly likely scenario, all this kit is not required for doing what they claim.

- Why are the Iranians modifying and developing IRBM's (Range 3000 km) capable of carrying nuclear warheads?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 22 Mar 07 - 01:29 PM

bb - Are you saying that Iran does not have the right to defend itself?

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

"dianavan - PM
Date: 22 Mar 07 - 01:29 PM

bb - Are you saying that Iran does not have the right to defend itself? "

No. If they are attacked, they have the right to defend themselves- as does every other country, including Israel and the US.

They DO NOT, BECAUSE of their signing the NPT, have the right to develop nuclear weapons, nor to conceal their nuclear activities that are covered by that treaty.

Israel, who DID NOT sign that treaty, nor recieved the aid provided by it, does NOT have the same requirements- along with all the other nations who did not sign the NPT. ALL those who DID sign it are subject to the restrictions that it imposes: Those who did not are NOT.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Mar 07 - 02:38 PM

"Israel should be held to the same international standard as other countries, which is to say, Israel should be required to reveal its WMDs if other people are required to. No double standard."


Which is in fact the case: Like all other nations* who did NOT sign the NPT, and benefit from it, Israel has no requirement to disclose information about their nuclear programs.

* India, Pakistan, US, Russia, France, Great Britain come to mind...

Not sure about Canada- have to check.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: autolycus
Date: 22 Mar 07 - 02:41 PM

Without having read right thru the whole shebang,Iran hasn't hit anyone's skull,so can we spend some time seeing what the West's resposibility is for all this Iran/Korea stuff?

   i think we've got time.

   and it may lead to a quite diofferent route to a solution.

   byeeeeeeee.






      Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Mar 07 - 02:46 PM

"The Treaty, which his country signed in 1968, was a treaty of commitment and not convenience, he said. The NPT was the world's most successful and most widely adhered to multilateral arms control treaty, with 187 State parties. The collective decision of 174 States, who were party to the Treaty in 1995, to extend it indefinitely, enshrined its values and enhanced its authority and integrity. Without nuclear disarmament, there would be nuclear proliferation. The permanence achieved five years ago was not a permit to retain nuclear weapons forever. In fact, that permanence made the obligation on all States parties to get rid of nuclear weapons and to stay rid of them unending.
.....
He said that Canada would continue to resist any movement to legitimize, de facto or de jure, any new nuclear-weapon State. He urged all States that had not yet done so to join the NPT and the CTBT without further delay and without conditions. He also urged all participants in the Conference on Disarmament to
show flexibility and to agree on a work programme and to commence negotiations on a fissile material cut-off treaty. "



http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/npt/news/20000502-canada2pc.htm

OK, Canada HAS signed the treaty, so they fall under NPT requirements.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Mar 07 - 02:52 PM

Sorry.
US, Russia, France, Great Britain did sign the treaty, but as nuclear powers- ie, they agreed NOT to provide prohibited material to other signatories. Like enrichment centrifuges to Iran...

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Mar 07 - 03:21 PM

Well, Teribus, as I have said before, the Iranians may be intent on building nuclear weapons...or they may not be. I don't know. I would not be surprised if they were. I would not be surprised if they weren't. Either possibility exists, neither is proven. I don't think the fact that a country has built secret installations or may be building nuclear weapons is ever justification for another country launching a pre-emptive attack on the first country.

Attacks on other countries are legal and justifiable only when one has already been attacked BY the armed forces of that country, in my opinion, and then in a reasonably proportionate manner.

I think the Americans would like to believe that it's okay for them to do what it's never okay for others to do...attack first. It's not okay. God is not an American. (joke) Neither is "God" an Israeli or an Iranian. No one has the right to launch a pre-emptive attack by its armed forces on another nation.

All countries that have nuclear weapons have them for these reasons...

1. They don't want to be at a military disadvantage in regards to any potential enemy, they want parity (or superiority if they can get it) when it comes to weapons.

2. They want to deter a nuclear or a conventional attack by being able to strike back in a similar manner.

But...they are all keenly aware that if they should launch a first strike, then they CAN be hit back in a similar fashion! And that restrains them from doing so, providing the other guy is similiarly armed. That is why India and Pakistan, for example, have been restrained from going beyond a certain point of open warfare since they both acquired nuclear strike capability.

Israel wanted nuclear weapons in order to have the ultimate deterrence against a foreign attack on Israel by the nations around it. That's perfectly understandable. I'd have done the same thing if I were them.

If Iran had nuclear weapons, then they would have a similar deterrent to attack from outside, wouldn't they? Saddam would not have dared to invade them, for instance, would he? The game would be evened out some. The USA and Israel do not want an even game, however, they want a game where they can smash the other guy and NOT get smashed back in a similar fashion.

The Iranians regard that as unfair. I believe that anyone else in their place would feel the same about that. ;-) You follow?

I think it is highly unlikely that Iran would fire nukes first, thus guaranteeing a massive retaliation from the USA and Israel. There is nothing in their past history to suggest such a totally self-defeating insanity on their part.

To say that the Iranians are that insane, which is really the implicit message underneath all the rhetoric from Israel and the USA strikes me as...

1. bigotry
2. innate assumptions of one's own moral superiority over the "filthy foreigner/heathen/infidel/whatever-you-call-them"
3. wishful thinking on the part of people who want to maintain absolute military supremacy and cannot abide an even playing field.

Assumptions of one's own innate superiority are very common in nations. I'm sure Iran is guilty of such vainglorious assumptions too! However, Iran is the one at a disadvantage here. I can readily see why they would want a similar strike capability to their most serious foes in the region, and I do not regard their wanting that as justifying a pre-emptive attack on them.

What happens when you have relative military parity is this: a lengthy stalemate, such as the Cold War. What happens when you don't is instability, invasion, and warfare, because the stronger attack the weaker whenever they think they can get away with it. This is why the world has become a much more dangerous place since the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, and it is why we have seen many of the recent wars.

The "Peace Dividend" that we were promised by our leaders when the Soviet system ended never came, did it? The middle class is worse off now than they were then. Military spending has gone up. Parity in weapons systems is far safer than one side in a confrontation having a clear advantage over the other.

And no one, in my opinion, has a moral exemption which allows them the luxury of pre-emptively attacking whom they want, when they want. Not Israel, not the USA, not Hezbollah, not Hamas, not Iran. No such attacks are justified.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 22 Mar 07 - 03:48 PM

If Iraq says that they are developing nuclear power for civilian purposes but the U.S. does not believe them, can the U.S. act unilaterally or must they act in agreement with the other signators?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Mar 07 - 04:02 PM

"If Iraq says that they are developing nuclear power for civilian purposes but the U.S. does not believe them, can the U.S. act unilaterally or must they act in agreement with the other signators? "

In the case of the NPT, the body that determines compliance or violations is the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). They have already stated that Iran is in violation, hence the present sanctions.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Mar 07 - 10:05 PM

"Attacks on other countries are legal and justifiable only when one has already been attacked BY the armed forces of that country, in my opinion, and then in a reasonably proportionate manner." - Little Hawk.

How antiquated and how cosy - wake up little raptor what you are saying has not been understood as being the case for the last forty years.

You seem to love this phrase, "in a reasonably proportionate manner".

Does that mean if someone repeatedly punches you in the shoulder, that you repeatedly punch them in the shoulder?. Do they then escalate and punch you elsewhere, you respond in like fashion, until they eventually punch you and you end up dead. All this time time you have responded, "in a reasonably proportionate manner" - but you are the one that was attacked and you are the one that has ended up dead.

Now for my part Little Hawk, if ever somebody hits me, my response will be that they will end up flat on their backs, in such a way that it will take them a very long time to get up. Having got up they will know at the very least two very important things:
1. They will not want to lay a hand on me again.
2. They will know without question of doubt what I deem a, "reasonably proportionate manner" to mean.

Now then LH, oh champion of the underdog, apply that to situation that Israel has faced 24/7 for the period of the last 59 years from numerically superior, and far more affluent foes, who have vowed to "wipe the stain of Israel from arab lands", "to drive the Israelis into the sea", "to wipe Israel from the map", "to obliterate the Jews".

As an Israeli LH what would be your thoughts on the situation in general, what would you do - something vaguely approaching realistic and natural would be good for an answer.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 22 Mar 07 - 10:59 PM

If the sanctions don't work, will the U.S. go it alone or does military action need to be authorized by the signators. In other words, what happens if the sanctions don't work?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Mar 07 - 12:08 AM

"Does that mean if someone repeatedly punches you in the shoulder, that you repeatedly punch them in the shoulder?. Do they then escalate and punch you elsewhere, you respond in like fashion..."

In a word, Teribus...yes. Exactly that. If I am a nation-state with an armed forces, then that is what I would do, figuratively speaking. I would not reply to a "punch in the shoulder" by immediately chopping the other guy's head off with an ax or shooting him dead with a revolver, which appears to be what you are recommending. ;-) I think that's because you assume you're a whole lot better and more valuable than the other guy, so it doesn't really matter what happens to him if he has the nerve to punch you. I don't make that assumption.

Nor would I ever claim that I have the right, as a nation-state, to launch a first attack or a pre-emptive attack on another nation-state (as the USA & UK did to Iraq in 2003). I do have the right to respond to an attack by another nation-state with a similar degree of force, however, and that is what mutual deterrence is all about. That's why I suggest that it's a lot safer when neither side feels it can risk a major war with the other.

"As an Israeli LH what would be your thoughts on the situation in general, what would you do - something vaguely approaching realistic and natural would be good for an answer."

I would protect the borders of Israel and the people of Israel with every force at my command. I would continue maintaining an elite military sufficient to deter Arab states from open war. I would not make land invasions of Lebanon or anyone else, but I would defend my own border areas vigorously against any attacker. I would not make pre-emptive attacks on other nations. I would not keep expanding Israeli settlements on occupied land taken in Arab-Israeli conflicts, nor would I build a security wall in those areas. I might very well build a security wall along the Israeli borders themselves, however. If rocket attacks were made from Lebanon, I would reply to those attacks with artillery and airstrikes aimed at the people launching the rockets. I would negotiate a gradual return of the occupied lands in the Golan Heights and the West Bank, and I would gradually move the Israeli settlers out of the occupied areas, compensating them (the settlers) fully for whatever losses they suffered in that process, so that they would be able to re-establish themselves in Israel itself. I would openly declare to the world that yes, I do have nuclear weapons...approximately this many...and I am ready to use them anytime on anyone who launches a nuclear attack on Israel...or a conventional attack that appears to endanger the national survival of Israel (a successful Arab invasion, in other words...which is quite unlikely to occur, given the superiority of the Israeli forces on the battlefield).

I would enter into negotiations with the Palestinians and the various Arab states to see if together we could work toward establishing a Palestinian homeland that is sustainable and a general end to hostilities (mind you, I would do it fully aware that it might lead nowhere...but to give it a try is better than no try at all). I would expect the Arab states to also be willing to contribute to making that possible....it's not just Israel's responsibility alone to do it.

I would promise not to attack any Muslim nation-state that does not attack me first (with its conventional armed forces).

I would do everything possible to sustain Israel and defend it, but not by taking over lands outside the original borders of Israel. I would remain vigilant, well armed, and fully capable of repelling attacks on Israel.

In fact I am recommending the same form of legitimate self-defence for Israel which I would recommend for any nation that was under outside threat.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Mar 07 - 02:29 AM

Following your outlined courses of action Little Hawk:

- First on a personal level, i.e. response to a physical assault you would be dead in short order.

- Second as Israel, congratulations, as a nation and as a sovereign state, you would have ceased to exist some 40 years ago, if not before.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Barry Finn
Date: 23 Mar 07 - 02:46 AM

Wrong T

-First on a personal level, depending one's traing to a physical assault you could deflect the assualt & use the attacker in such a way as to render them helpless & harmless without inflecting any harm & still control the situation. As a military man you should know this.

-Second is bullshit. Had a nation used those parameters they wouldn't have to worry so much about their permiters!

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Mar 07 - 03:05 AM

Your own ego has you by the tail, Teribus, and doesn't allow you to be objective in the least when arguing a point. You argue for the right to answer any assault, even a minor one, with a near-fatal retaliation...or with murder. I argue for sensible restraint and the use of the minimum necessary force in any given situation...which is an extremely wise and judicious course for both individuals and nations to follow.

Both civil and international law are on my side when it comes to that. People who do what you recommend end up in jail, Teribus.

Israel would be considerably better off right now, had they followed the middle path I recommend, and not occupied other people's lands (outside the original Israeli borders). They would have won a number of decisive victories and not sullied their own national image in the process. They would have far more friends in the world. They would be far MORE secure and respected among nations than they presently are.

I consider people with your kind of slegehammer approach to life to be a great threat to the survival of Israel, Teribus. Not that you mean to be, you just are, because you don't know when to stop...and you have this odd characteristic of seeing evil only on one side of an old and bitter political dispute. It's never that simple. Both the Israelis AND their foes in the Middle East have genuine grievances. Both have suffered great loss. Both deserve to be listened to seriously, each by the other, and compromises need to be made in order to find a solution.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Mar 07 - 07:20 AM

The same old tactic, Little Hawk, first put words into my mouth then take me to task over them - pathetic.

"I would not reply to a "punch in the shoulder" by immediately chopping the other guy's head off with an ax or shooting him dead with a revolver, which appears to be what you are recommending." - Little Hawk

OK then Little Hawk where in whatever I have said has there been any mention of chopping off heads? Where in whatever I have said has there been any mention of shooting people dead? I did however mention this:

"my response will be that they will end up flat on their backs, in such a way that it will take them a very long time to get up"

Ever seen anybody who has had their head chopped off get up Little Hawk?

Ever seen anybody who has been shot dead with a revolver get up Little Hawk?

Very funny Barry - now go back and read what the premise under discussion here actually is. Perhaps Barry you can tell us how long, when faced with an external threat that Israel can afford to remain fully mobilised before the country ceases to function and suffers long term economical affects. I'll give you a clue Baz, it's what drove Israeli decisions and actions in the "Six Day War"

Now then let's take a look at what Little Hawk sees as being something vaguely approaching realistic and natural from an Israeli viewpoint.

1) "I would protect the borders of Israel and the people of Israel with every force at my command."

Realistic - That they already do.

2) "I would continue maintaining an elite military sufficient to deter Arab states from open war."

Realistic - That they already do in spite of the fact that both my enemies and my own forces are conscripted with their standing force levels being much superior in numbers to mine. I therefore have to convince my enemy that my fewer numbers can punch very much above their weight. I also must, at all cost, in any given situation, keep the initiative.

3a) "I would not make land invasions of Lebanon or anyone else, but I would defend my own border areas vigorously against any attacker."

3b) "If rocket attacks were made from Lebanon, I would reply to those attacks with artillery and airstrikes aimed at the people launching the rockets."

I've lumped these two together Little Hawk because to follow what you suggest would be a completely ineffective response to the scale and type of attacks that you claim to be defending vigorously against. Part b above, I would like confirmation, from you, on this. You seriously advocate attacking those people launching the rockets (Over 1000 per day at one stage by the way) with artillery and airstrikes in the full understanding and knowledge that those firing those rockets are doing so from selected sensitive locations surrounded by civilians. That is what you would do?

You make no mention that under the terms of the UN brokered cease-fire Hezbollah should have by now disarmed - no action has been taken on this by either the Lebanese Government, Lebanese Army, the UN or Syria. Under the terms of the same cease-fire agreement an arms embargo should have been put in place to starve Hezbollah of resupply of rockets and other weapons - no action has been taken on this, in fact since this measure was set Hezbollah's supplies of rockets and offensive weapons have never been higher.

Now faced with such circumstances, little hawk, your best defence is to push those firing the rockets back to a range where they can no longer reach your territory.

4) "I would not make pre-emptive attacks on other nations."

So in all seriousness you would wait for them to attack you, then respond. Hmm? Now would that response be in the form of vigorous defence of your border with every force at your command? Or would that response be "in a reasonably proportionate manner"?

Had the Israeli's followed your course of action Little Hawk they would have been wiped out in 1967.

The requirement for pre-emptive attacks was born with the nuclear weapon. As both a strategy and tactic it has been around, and has been accepted, by all for a long time.

5a) "I would negotiate a gradual return of the occupied lands in the Golan Heights and the West Bank, and I would gradually move the Israeli settlers out of the occupied areas, compensating them (the settlers) fully for whatever losses they suffered in that process, so that they would be able to re-establish themselves in Israel itself."

5b) "I would not keep expanding Israeli settlements on occupied land taken in Arab-Israeli conflicts, nor would I build a security wall in those areas. I might very well build a security wall along the Israeli borders themselves, however."


I would rather hope that this would extend right across the board Little Hawk - That it would also apply to the Arab side as well as the Israeli one. In which case the following should be returned to Israel as part of this process:

- Gaza (captured from Israel and annexed by Egypt in 1948);

- The whole of the West Bank of the Jordan (Captured from Israel and annexed by Jordan in 1948 - true enough they did relinquish their claim to it in 1988, according to the UN the current status of the West Bank is that of a territory "owned" by no-one at present);

- The area around the Sea of Galilee and the on the Golan defined by the 1923 Paulet-Newcombe line (Captured from Israel and annexed by Syria in 1948).

Now you're talking Little Hawk - If that is what you are actually advocating - or as usual should all the give in these negotiations be on the Israeli side.

But Israel unilaterally gave relinguished all claim to Gaza, abandoned its settlements there and handed the area over to the Palestinian Authority on the condition that indiscriminate attacks on the civilian population of Israel would not be launched from Gaza. The PA accepted this deal. Now tell us Little Hawk, did the indiscriminate attacks on the civilian population of Israel cease? Or did they continue as before? Did Israel respond to such attacks with, how did you advocate it - "I would reply to those attacks with artillery and airstrikes aimed at the people launching the rockets" - this they did and I sort of remember that at the time you objected strongly to them doing that - Now it's OK? Make up your mind chum, you can't have it both ways.

6) "I would openly declare to the world that yes, I do have nuclear weapons...approximately this many...and I am ready to use them anytime on anyone who launches a nuclear attack on Israel...or a conventional attack that appears to endanger the national survival of Israel (a successful Arab invasion, in other words...which is quite unlikely to occur, given the superiority of the Israeli forces on the battlefield)."

Yes I'd go along with that. Very pleased to see that you acknowledge precisely the threat that is posed to Israel by her neighbours - that of total destruction. It would work very well for neighbouring Governments, but totally ineffective as a deterrant to the terrorist organisations that those Governments support? How would this scenario be dealt with:

Iran secretly obtains nuclear weapons. It then supplies a couple of fairly low yield weapons to either Hezbollah or Hamas, who then smuggle them into Israel. Two cities are targeted Tel Aviv and Haifa. The bombs are detonated, what does Israel do? How does it respond, taking it for granted that after such an attck they are capable of responding? Now tell me what would make this unlikely, nay impossible to happen?. Please don't witter on about loss of Palestinian lives and effects of fall-out on neighbouring Arab countries, the Iranians couldn't give a fig about their own population let alone a bunch of strangers 1000 kilometers away.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 Mar 07 - 07:50 AM

A good summary, T.

Now let us see what LH et al will say.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 Mar 07 - 10:09 AM

15 British sailors detained by Iran
Updated 11m ago |   



LONDON (AP) — Iranian naval vessels arrested and seized 15 British sailors and marines on Friday in Iraqi waters moments after they searched a merchant ship, the Ministry of Defense said.
Britain summoned Iran's ambassador in London to demand their immediate release.

The British personnel from the frigate HMS Cornwall were "engaged in routine boarding operations of merchant shipping in Iraqi territorial waters," and had completed their inspection of a merchant ship when they were accosted by Iranian vessels, the ministry said in a statement.

"We are urgently pursuing this matter with the Iranian authorities at the highest level and ... the Iranian ambassador has been summoned to the Foreign Office," the ministry said.


ON DEADLINE: Read more about the British soldiers

"The British government is demanding the immediate and safe return of our people and equipment."

"I've got 15 sailors and marines who have been arrested by the Iranians and my immediate concern is their safety," the Cornwall's commander, Commodore Nick Lambert, told British Broadcasting Corp television.

Lambert said it was a routine boarding. The skipper of the vessel had "answered all the questions, and the leader of the boarding party cleared him to continue with his business."

Lambert said the Cornwall lost communication with the boarding party, but a helicopter crew saw the Iranian vessels approach.

A fisherman who said he was with a group of Iraqis from Basra in the northern area of the Gulf said he witnessed the event. The fisherman declined to be identified because of security concerns.

"Two boats, each with a crew of six to eight multinational forces, were searching Iraqi and Iranian boats Friday morning in Ras al-Beesha area in the northern entrance of the Arab Gulf, but big Iranian boats came and took the two boats with their crews to the Iranian waters," said the fisherman.

BBC reporter Ian Pannell on HMS Cornwall said the sailors had just boarded a dhow when they were accosted.

"While they were on board, a number of Iranian boats approached the waters in which they were operating — the Royal Navy are insistent that they were operating in Iraqi waters and not Iranian waters — and essentially captured the Royal Navy and Royal Marine personnel at gunpoint," Pannell said.

In June 2004, six British marines and two sailors were seized by Iran in the Shatt al-Arab between Iran and Iraq. Iran said that before that group was released, British diplomats acknowledged the British boats entered the Iranian waters by mistake.

Britain's Defense Ministry subsequently said, however, that the captives believed they had not entered Iranian waters.

The U.S. 5th Fleet said the Royal Navy sailors were assigned to a naval task force whose mission is to protect Iraqi oil terminals and maintain security in Iraqi waters under the U.N. mandate of the Security Council resolutions on Iraq.

The fleet said in a statement issued by its headquarters in Bahrain: "The boarding party had completed a successful inspection of a merchant ship when they and their two boats were surrounded and escorted by Iranian vessels into Iranian territorial waters," the statement said.

The Iranians seized the Britons at 10:30 a.m. Iraqi time, the statement added.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Mar 07 - 11:26 AM

"The Czech crisis was really the last chance to stop Hitler's war." - Little Hawk (21 Mar 07 - 09:58 PM)

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Hitler's advisors and members of the German General Staff told Hitler that if faced with having to fight a war on two fronts (i.e. against Britain and France in the West and against Russia in the East). He had to fight in the West no later than 1938 and attack in the East before 1944.

On the night the Munich "Peace Deal" was done, Hitler was absolutely furious. He thought that he had suceeded in pushing too hard, he thought that he would get his war in the west on schedule - He didn't. The worthless piece of paper that Chamberlin brought back from Munich, turned out to be not-so-worthless, it bought Britain time.

Time to re-equip its fighter squadrons with modern aircraft that were equal to those in Luftwaffe service.

Time to perfect and install Radar and train fighter controllers.

Time to work on ASDIC

Time to design cheap and easily produced escort vessels (the Flower Class Corvette).

Without all those things being done during 1938 and 1939, things would have turned out rather differently.

The time to have stopped Hitler was in 1936 when he occupied the Rhineland. According to the memoirs of General Heinz Guderian if the German Army had been confronted by a single French Gendarme on the bridge they used to march back into the Rhineland the German Army was under orders to turn round and go back. Unfortunately for the entire world there was no French Policemen on that bridge.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 Mar 07 - 11:32 AM

The Results of Diplomacy
In Iran's case, they've been pretty thin.
Thursday, March 29, 2007; Page A18


IRAN'S SEIZURE of 15 British sailors and marines on the day before the U.N. Security Council approved another resolution imposing sanctions on Tehran for its nuclear program may have been a coincidence. But the seizure illustrated a stubborn reality about the diplomatic campaign the Bush administration embraced two years ago: While successful on its own terms, the campaign has yet to produce any significant change in Iranian behavior.

Administration officials were encouraged by signs of dissension in the Iranian leadership after the first of two unanimous sanctions resolutions passed the Security Council in late December. Before the second resolution was introduced, there were talks between Iranian and European officials about ways to renew negotiations. Yet the Iranian work on uranium enrichment has continued; there are signs the regime is racing to complete an industrial installation with thousands of centrifuges that it can present to the world as an accomplished fact.

Now Iran is parading captured British sailors before cameras and using their purported confessions of trespassing in Iranian waters as propaganda in a way that suggests an eagerness to escalate rather than defuse confrontation with the West. Yesterday, Britain offered evidence that its service members were captured in international waters and rightly called their treatment "completely unacceptable." Though Iran's foreign minister said a female sailor would be released "very soon," the television broadcast suggested the prisoners had been coerced.

It's widely believed that power in Iran is divided among competing factions, and it could be that hard-liners are seeking to preempt any steps by the regime to comply with the Security Council. It's impossible to predict what might come out of Tehran before the next U.N. deadline in late May. Yet what has happened so far is sobering.

Bush administration officials have been congratulating themselves on the relative speed and deftness with which the latest sanctions resolution was pushed through the Security Council. They are right, in a way: The diplomatic campaign against Iran has been pretty successful by the usual diplomatic measures. Not only has the United States worked relatively smoothly with European partners with which it differed bitterly over Iraq, but it has also been effective lately in winning support from Russia, China and nonaligned states such as South Africa.

Critics who lambasted the administration's unilateral campaign against an "axis of evil" a few years ago ought to be applauding the return to conventional diplomacy. We, too, think it's worth pursuing, especially when combined with steps short of a military attack to push back against Iranian aggression in the region. Still, two years after President Bush embraced the effort, it has to be noted: The diplomatic strategy so far has been no more successful than the previous "regime change" policy in stopping Iran's drive for a nuclear weapon.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/28/AR2007032802051.html

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Mar 07 - 01:23 PM

Well, Teribus, I am pleased to see that we agree on a number of points about the defence of Isreal, although not all of them. Isn't it wonderful that we can actually agree on several? I think so. I think if you would spend more energy on attempting to find agreement that it would be more productive than your usual approach, which is to examine other people's statements under a microscope for any flaw you can pounce on.

Do you see that I do support Israel's right to exist and not be attacked by people? I hope so.

I don't agree with your assessment of Germany's military position in 1938....I don't think they were ready at all for war in the West then...but it would make an interesting thing to look into further.

I don't think it's particularly vital for me to consume a half-hour or so into answering every detail of your every statemtment right now... ;-) What difference would it really make? Is there a God up there who will reward whoever scores the most points in a debate between Teribus and LH on Mudcat? Naw.... If there was, he wouldn't waste his time on that. To put it another way, who (outside of possibly Bearded Bruce) gives a flying flip? ;-)

Just be glad that we do agree on a number of fundamental ways in which Israel can best defend itself. We don't have to agree on all of them.

As for stopping the various terrorist and suicide attacks on Israel by shadowy groups and individuals who may or may not be supported by this or that Muslim government...there IS no military tactic whatsoever that can be 100% effective in doing that. There simply isn't a military solution to ending all such violence. Only a gradual series of political compromises and new agreements and a corresponding shift in general Arab-Israeli attitudes toward one another can end such attacks...and that may take generations.

I suggest it will take even longer than getting you and I and Bearded Bruce to agree with everything each of us says on this forum... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 Mar 07 - 01:28 PM

"than getting you and I and Bearded Bruce to agree with everything each of us says on this forum"

General comment- not addressing any specific post at this time:

I, for one, do not require that we AGREE on everything said- but it would be nice to get a look at the evidence being used to form each of our opinions. Some consensus as to the facts being considered would be useful.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Mar 07 - 04:22 PM

Whatever...Bruce I am not getting paid enough to look up every darn fact someone else on this forum wants to know. ;-)

Look, I'm just here chatting about things I happen to find interesting for some reason. It's one of my hobbies. If someone were to pay me well to document every flippin' thing I talk about here in excruciating detail, I'd consider it. But that ain't gonna happen. ;-)

By the way....I AGAIN unintentionally spelled "Israel" as "Isreal" in a previous post. God, I hate it when I do that! I bloody well know it's spelled "Israel". Is-ra-el. I've known that since I was about 6 or 7 years old, matter of fact, so excuse my typos when they occur.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Mar 07 - 04:24 PM

600!!!! I win an all expense paid trip to the Virgin Islands!

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Nickhere
Date: 29 Mar 07 - 07:38 PM

The principal purpose of the NPT was to limit membership of the nuclear club. Several countries had already acquired nuclear devices, so nothing much could be done about that. The cat was out of the bag. If the USA had had its way, it would have been the ONLY country with nukes, and since it showed a willingness to use them, no doubt it would be using at least the threat of them to determine world policy today. We are spared the worst of Big Bully because several other countries got them too, and the centre of power was dispersed. On the down side we were (and are) left with the threat of nuclear annihilation ever since if triggerr fingers get itchy.

Israel didn't sign up to the NPT so it could developp its own weapons. It didn't need the NPT to get aid as it was (and is) already being bankrolled by the US to the tune of several billion dollars a year. Plus a number of US physicists used 'right of return' to head off to Israel and bring their tech know-how with them. Britian the USA and the rest signed the NPT to stop the spread of a coveted technology, but had no intention of scrapping their own weapons (except old redundant ones).

So the NPT is a load of old cobblers, in short. Mulitalteral nuclear disarmament is the only way to guarantee our future, but who's going to make the first move? No-one wants to be first and warmongerers like Bush etc., are simply upping the stakes with their aggression. Iran sees what happens when North Korea is presumed to have nukes - it's treated just like any other gentleman member of the club. As I've said before, the best nuclear 'deterrent' is to cut back on some of the fear-mongering and posturing and start practising what is preached.

L.H is spot on to say the NPT is a load of legalese being used as a stick to beat Iran. The invasion of Iraq was,n't sanctioned by the UN, but America and Britain just went ahead and did it anyway and to hell with legal niceities. 'Legality' is a term they use to browbeat the 'other guy' into doing what they want, an excuse to attack him when he doesn't, and something that doesn't apply to oneself, unless it produces the result you want.

Iran will probably be invaded anyway, nukes or no, because a cabal of US and other 'western' politicians have decided it's time to re-draw (yet again) the map of the Middle East to suit their current needs. The unfortunate indians - I mean, citizens, who happen to be in the way of their latest project will probably put up some kind of a fight and be flattened, just like the Iraqis, God help them. Meanwhile, lost in all the talk about 'spreading democracy' (makes democracy sound like some kind of virus, doesn't it?) and 'making the world a safer place' is Robert Mugabe, beating and shooting opposition parties and running is country into the ground. But, the 19th century has passed, and the West has already looted Africa for whatever was worthwhile, and so you won't see any marines turning up in Zimbabwe to save the beleagured people from an oppressive dictator.


B.Finn: "Which is what the US should do with Bush, Rummey, Rice, the Wolf, Cheney & others! Arrest them before they start of WWIII"

Well said. Well said!

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Mar 07 - 07:52 PM

"L.H is spot on to say the NPT is a load of legalese being used as a stick to beat Iran. The invasion of Iraq was,n't sanctioned by the UN, but America and Britain just went ahead and did it anyway and to hell with legal niceities. 'Legality' is a term they use to browbeat the 'other guy' into doing what they want, an excuse to attack him when he doesn't, and something that doesn't apply to oneself, unless it produces the result you want."

Well said, Nickhere. That is exactly my point. Legalities are only quoted by the USA and Britain when they happen to work in their favor. They are ignored and violated when they don't. Same goes for everyone else too. ;-) All governments who are bent on aggression essentially quote various legalities in a completely cynical fashion whenever it is to their advantage to do so...and ignore and violate other legalities when they are to their disadvantage. That is standard behaviour in the business of Realpolitick. Excuses are always made for why it's "okay", but it's just a PR game for the sake of the congregation. One needs to fool one's public into thinking a war is necessary, after all, or morale on the homefront could become a real problem, and could threaten someone's political career.

It's laughable to see some petty and essentially minor technical legality being used to justify a far more serious major illegality...like launching an illegal war of aggression, and that is what Mr Bush and Mr Blair did when they last went to war. I expect they will do it again. I would be quite surprised if they did not.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Mar 07 - 07:52 PM

Nickhere, your post of 29 Mar 07 - 07:38 PM.

Properly categorised - without doubt the greatest load of bulshit I think I have ever had the misfortune to read on this forum.

Complete and utter crap from start to finish - Well said indeed!! - Absolute drivel more like.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Mar 07 - 08:02 PM

Nice to see that our roles remain so consistent, isn't it, mate? We each think the same of the other's perceptions of reality. It all comes down to who you trust and who you don't in this world: Who you think the "good guys" are and who you think the "bad guys" are, in other words. And that is a matter largely dependant on the whole previous history of one's own personal life experiences from the cradle to the present moment. You are an instinctive loyalist to the very Anglo-American governmental forces which I consider to be (at present) the greatest oppressors in the world.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 29 Mar 07 - 11:56 PM

Once in awhile, we get to the truth of the matter. Nickhere and Littlehawk are absolutely right, teribus, and you are so dumbfounded that you just mutter and splutter all over the page.

You may not want to admit it, teribus, but the rest of the world already knows,

"The invasion of Iraq was,n't sanctioned by the UN, but America and Britain just went ahead and did it anyway and to hell with legal niceities. 'Legality' is a term they use to browbeat the 'other guy' into doing what they want, an excuse to attack him when he doesn't, and something that doesn't apply to oneself, unless it produces the result you want."

Sweeping it under the carpet is not going work anymore. Grow up and stop hiding behind your 'daddy'.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Nickhere
Date: 30 Mar 07 - 02:46 PM

Teribus: "Nickhere, your post of 29 Mar 07 - 07:38 PM.Properly categorised - without doubt the greatest load of bulshit I think I have ever had the misfortune to read on this forum.Complete and utter crap from start to finish - Well said indeed!! - Absolute drivel more like"

Always delighted to oblige, Teribus! ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,John T. M
Date: 30 Mar 07 - 09:02 PM

This limp wristed tool is gone,He is a joke. His Saudi allies have abandoneed him. His secy of Defense defies him, so does Condi. Congress!!! defies him. He is a man in the wicker basket waiting for someone to light the match. He is gone. Along with Gone zal is.. There will be no war in Iran. The tool can't manage it. Count the days.
so let it be written so let it be done.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Apr 07 - 08:04 AM

White House: 'We are very concerned' about Iran's nukes
POSTED: 1:26 a.m. EDT, April 10, 2007
Story Highlights• Iran has reached "industrial level" nuclear production, Ahmadinejad says
• Iranian president says program to be used for "expansion of peace and stability"
• Iran could reconsider Non-Proliferation Treaty membership, chief negotiator warns
• U.S. State Department spokesman says Iran is defying international community
Adjust font size:
TEHRAN, Iran (CNN) -- Iran's president announced Monday that his country has begun production of nuclear fuel on an "industrial level."

"Iran has succeeded in development to attain production at an industrial level," Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said in a speech at the Natanz uranium enrichment facility in central Iran.

The announcement came on the first anniversary of the start of uranium enrichment at the plant.

President Bush contends Iran is using its program to develop nuclear weapons.

Leaders of European nations have expressed similar alarm.

"We are very concerned," said White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe. "We call on the Iranian regime to comply with its obligations to the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) and U.N. Security Council."

Monday, Ahmadinejad said, "With great pride, I announce that as of today, our dear country, Iran, is among the countries of the world that produces the industrial level of nuclear fuel." (Watch the 'concerned' reaction to Iran's nuclear news )

Iran: Nuke program 'irreversible'
Iran's leader vowed it will be used for energy "and for the expansion of peace and stability," adding that the goal of "progress" for Iran is "irreversible."

Ahmadinejad's speech came on what Iran called its National Nuclear Feast, designed to send a message to the world that the nation will not halt its nuclear activities despite calls for it to do so from many Western governments, particularly the United States, and sanctions imposed by the U.N. Security Council.

The IAEA -- the U.N. nuclear watchdog -- has said it cannot confirm that Iran's nuclear activities are for peaceful purposes. IAEA officials say Iran has failed to cooperate with inspectors.

U.S. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack called Monday's events "another signal Iran is in defiance of the international community."

He added that it shows the international community has been right in levying sanctions.

McCormack called it a "missed opportunity" for Iran, arguing Iranian leaders should have announced they were suspending their uranium enrichment program in response to the international concerns.

No one disputes Iran's right to a peaceful nuclear energy program, he said, and added, "There is a negotiation alternative."

But Ahmadinejad said Monday there has been "no evidence of violation in our activities."

"Despite the cooperation of our country and its transparency, despite the fact that our measures are legal, we have witnessed controversy created by some powers who benefit from the nuclear fuel cycle themselves," he said.

He committed much of his speech to slamming the "enemies" of Iran, who he said don't want to see it make "progress."

"They have even resorted to the Security Council and tried to turn it into a tool to prevent the nuclear development of the Islamic Republic of Iran."

Before Ahmadinejad spoke, Vice President Gholamreza Aghazadeh said, "We have gathered, thanking Almighty God for the introduction of the uranium enrichment program to the industrial phase, and once again we thank almighty God for allowing us to attain industrial enrichment plans."

Iran gave no indication it intends to capitulate to international demands.

At schools throughout the country, bells were rung Monday in celebration, and children chanted slogans, such as: "Nuclear energy is an inalienable right of the Iranian nation" and "No country has the right to deprive Iran of its indisputable right."

"The Iranian nation is in need of nuclear fuel cycle," state-run news agency IRNA said.

At the United Nations in New York, Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon held out hope for a resolution to the dispute.

"I sincerely hope that even at this time when (the) Iranian government is undergoing Security Council sanctions, that it could engage in dialogue with the international community," he said.

"This is very important for any country to fully comply with the Security Council resolutions. I urge (the) Iranian government to do so."

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Apr 07 - 01:59 PM

Iran vows to expand nuclear plans
POSTED: 9:06 a.m. EDT, April 10, 2007

Story Highlights• Iran planning to expand nuclear program, atomic energy head says
• Infrastructure at Natanz nuclear facility for 50,000 centrifuges, Aghazadeh says
• Iran has reached "industrial level" nuclear production, Ahmadinejad says
• IAEA says it cannot confirm Iran's nuclear activities for peaceful purposes

TEHRAN, Iran (CNN) -- A day after Iran announced it had begun production of nuclear fuel on an "industrial level," the head of the country's atomic energy organization said Iran had plans to greatly expand its nuclear program.

"Iran's uranium enrichment program in Natanz does not only aim to install 3,000 centrifuges, but 50,000 centrifuges," Iran's Atomic Energy Organization chief, Gholam Reza Aghazadeh said, according to the state-run IRNA news agency. Centrifuges are used in the process of enriching uranium.

The Natanz nuclear facility is located in central Iran, about 200 miles (320 kilometers) south of Tehran.

Iranian plans to expand its enrichment process to 50,000 centrifuges goes well beyond any previously announced aspirations by Tehran.

"I did not want to create any uncertainty about the nuclear program," Aghazadeh said. "But it is a fact that all of our infrastructure (in Natanz) ... is planned for 50,000 centrifuges."

According to Aghazadeh, Iran's Atomic Energy Organization "intends to develop, optimize and update nuclear technology in the future," including an international tender for construction of two 1,000-megawatt power plants, which he said will be announced in the coming days.

On Monday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced his country has begun production of nuclear fuel on an "industrial level." (Timeline: Iran's nuclear program)

"Iran has succeeded in development to attain production at an industrial level," Ahmadinejad said in a speech at Natanz to mark the anniversary of the start of uranium enrichment at the plant.

"With great pride, I announce that as of today, our dear country, Iran, is among the countries of the world that produces the industrial level of nuclear fuel."

He vowed the fuel would be used for energy "and for the expansion of peace and stability," adding that the goal of "progress" for Iran was "irreversible."

Ahmadinejad's speech came on what Iran called its National Nuclear Feast, designed to send a message to the world that the nation would not halt its nuclear activities despite calls for it to do so from many Western governments, particularly the United States, and sanctions imposed by the U.N. Security Council.

The IAEA -- the U.N. nuclear watchdog -- has said it cannot confirm Iran's nuclear activities are for peaceful purposes. IAEA officials say Iran has failed to cooperate with inspectors. (Watch the 'concerned' reaction to Iran's nuclear news )

But Ahmadinejad said Monday there had been "no evidence of violation in our activities."

"Despite the cooperation of our country and its transparency, despite the fact that our measures are legal, we have witnessed controversy created by some powers who benefit from the nuclear fuel cycle themselves," he said.

He committed much of his speech to slamming the "enemies" of Iran, who he said didn't want to see it make "progress."

"They have even resorted to the Security Council and tried to turn it into a tool to prevent the nuclear development of the Islamic Republic of Iran."

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Dickey
Date: 13 Apr 07 - 02:32 PM

Regime Change In Iran Is On Its Way

Ghazal Omid - 4/14/2007

"Regime change in Iran is on its way, from within. However, an outside attack on Iran will give the Mullahs exactly what they want. Iran has, rightfully, been identified as the main target in the US Global War on Terror. The regime has fostered the brutal insurgency in Iraq, nurtured terror groups like Hezbollah and Hamas, and committed many other violations of international law. The recent kidnapping/release of the British Marines may make an attack seem a tantalizing quick fix.

This is a defensible position, and no one wants this government removed more than the Iranians living there now. For twenty-five years of my own life, I was taught to hate Americans, Israelis, and the rest of the Western World. At age fourteen, my challenge to the regime's watch dogs was, "I am not going to hate someone I don't even know!" This, and other simple forms of resistance, sacrificed my dream of living inside my own country. When I fled Iran, under death threats from the Sepah Pasdaran, Iranians didn't dare to speak against the regime publicly. Today, people are on the streets every day; they have abandoned fear, and are fighting tooth and nail to start their revolution.

Yes, I said revolution! In the past two months, there have been at least three major protests in Iran.

There have been many clashes between the Iranian people and the government's agents; they are fed up with a government that is banking on war with the West to guarantee its continued existence

Unfortunately, US politicians have either never read, or have forgotten, Persian history. Unlike the rest of the Arab world, our national fervor as Persians, not our religious fervor as Muslims, plays the preeminent role. We are compelled to fight the enemy of our country, even if we know the attacking nation has the best intentions.

The government of Iran knows this all too well, and exploited patriotism during the Iran-Iraq war, when millions of Iranian young men, who could now rise up and challenge the current regime, died on battlefields as their lives were just beginning...."

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Apr 07 - 02:53 PM

the rest of the article...


"Many more perished for speaking out against the government, inside Evin and other prisons. I know this intimately because I represent a group of nineteen political prisoners, many of whom are on death lists. This is how Iran treats its own people.

Yet, if the US attacks Iran, the Iranian government's fondest wish will be granted, and many more young men will die.

A US attack on Iran will spur the tyrants to genocide, killing any Iranian standing up to challenge the government. Unlike US tolerance of opposition in wartime, Iranian rules of war state that anyone speaking out against the government has committed treason. Punishment for such a crime in Iran is a swift and brutal death.

Knowing this, the US is preparing for a massive attack, and those who can read a map and understand military strategies can see it. Joel Pousson, independent military analyst, has identified armadas now in the Arabian Sea as well as in the Eastern Mediterranean. Perhaps they are to attack Iran, and guard against a second front should Hizbollah attack Israel and the government of Lebanon. He reports training exercises on the long-quiet ranges of Ft Carson, Colorado, American reservists receiving unexpected activation orders, and offices tasked with protecting reservists' civilian jobs suddenly receiving additional staff.
Preparations are underway, but it is unclear whether the US will make the smart strike on Hizbollah and their terror web, or head from Iraq into Iran, where the government is preparing the same sort of IED and suicide attacks the US has faced in Iraq.

Attacking Hizbollah, eliminating their terror training camps and logistical support will prevent the terrorism campaign awaiting the West if Iran is attacked. Iran can be cut off from its agents, and the West and the Siniora government in Lebanon can eliminate Hizbollah, stabilizing that young democracy.

If, however, the US attacks Iran, the Straits of Hormuz could be blocked with just a couple of ships sunk. Thousands of university students, will be forced to don suicide vests, and will deploy as the terrorists that shuttled from Damascus airport for training and final dispositions in Iran launch attacks throughout the Mid East, Europe, and possibly, inside America.

The smart move, if a military move is to be made now, is to attack Hizbollah, economically isolate the Iranian government, and fund legitimate resistance groups in Iran to remove the Mullahs without the loss of one American life.

America is a smart nation. The leaders who call the shots can make the smart decision.

Ghazal Omid is an author of Living in Hell, human rights and women's rights advocate, and an expert on Iran and Shiah Islam."

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 13 Apr 07 - 03:45 PM

If there is anything that America should understand it is this:

"Unlike the rest of the Arab world, our national fervor as Persians, not our religious fervor as Muslims, plays the preeminent role."

From the same article.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Apr 07 - 03:53 PM

I sort of like

"Attacking Hizbollah, eliminating their terror training camps and logistical support will prevent the terrorism campaign awaiting the West if Iran is attacked. Iran can be cut off from its agents, and the West and the Siniora government in Lebanon can eliminate Hizbollah, stabilizing that young democracy."

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Apr 07 - 05:53 AM

According to what is being reported by MSM it looks as though the North Koreans are up to their old tricks again, as yet another agreed deadline for actions on their part slips past, while they labouriously "verify" whether or not their 25million US$ (unforged) has been defrosted (normally this would only take a single phone call).

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Apr 07 - 09:27 AM

North Korea nuclear deadline slips By CHARLES HUTZLER, Associated Press Writer
28 minutes ago



BEIJING -       North Korea missed a Saturday deadline for shutting down its main nuclear reactor, and a key U.S. negotiator said the country must keep the disarmament program from foundering.

The United States and other governments involved in six-nation talks on North Korea's nuclear programs said the slipping of the 60-day deadline was significant, but not yet fatal to a two-month-old agreement that laid out a timetable for disarmament.

"It's time for the North Koreans to get moving on their issues," Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill, the chief U.S. negotiator, told reporters after meeting in Beijing with his Chinese counterpart.

Hill ticked off the unmet conditions of the February agreement: North Korea's failure to shutter its Yongbyon reactor and allow verification by U.N. inspectors, and       South Korea's resulting refusal to ship 50,000 tons of fuel oil to the North.

Saturday's missed deadline marked the latest setback for an agreement that, when reached in February, offered the prospect of disarming the world's newest declared nuclear power.

North Korea successfully tested a nuclear bomb in October.

But the timetable was tripped up by a dispute over North Korean deposits frozen in a tiny Macau bank, which was blacklisted by Washington for allegedly abetting money-laundering and counterfeiting. North Korea refused to make any move until the funds issue was resolved, but the matter — which was supposed to have been resolved in mid-March — dragged on until this past week.

Acknowledging that the frozen funds issue had bedeviled the talks, Hill said that the funds were now ready, and that North Korea should tap them and take steps to meet its other commitments.

North Korea's Foreign Ministry, in a statement released by the government news agency, said Friday that it would carry out its side of the agreement "when the lifting of the sanction is proved to be a reality."

The North Korean capital was consumed by preparations for Sunday's birthday of the communist nation's late founder, Kim Il Sung, and the country had no response to the latest comments from Hill.

In a typically truculent, 70-minute speech on state television, North Korea's No. 2 leader, Kim Yong Nam, vowed to defend the communist country from U.S. and Japanese attack.

Earlier in the day, Hill had struck a more pessimistic note, saying the North's lack of action over the 60-day milestone had sapped momentum from the disarmament process.

After talks with his Chinese counterpart, Wu Dawei, Hill said he was persuaded "to show patience for a couple more days."

Once that's done, he expected that negotiators for the six countries involved — South Korea, Japan and Russia as well as the U.S., North Korea and China — would likely meet again before the end of the month to discuss additional the next phases in disarming North Korea.

South Korea, which supports rapprochement with the North, played down the failure to meet the 60-day deadline, calling it a technicality.

"What is important is whether there is any wavering in political will," South Korea's chief nuclear negotiator, Chun Yung-woo, said in a telephone interview.

____

AP reporters Jae-soon Chang in Seoul and Mari Yamaguchi in Tokyo contributed to this report.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Nickhere
Date: 14 Apr 07 - 09:21 PM

One thing I can't figure: Iran MUST know that it's open nuclear programme is an open invitation to be attacked by the USA, whether it's for peaceful purposes or not. The USA invaded Iraq on a far lesser pretext - the non-existent WMD and imaginary links to al-Qaeda. The Iranian president saves US intelligence a load of work by giving step-by-step updates about the progress of his nuclear programme, while evn listing places where it's going on (Nanatz). Meanwhile US battleships assemble in the Straits of Hormuz like schoolboys by the bike shed in the school yard getting ready for a scheduled fight. What is the Iranian president thinking? If I was conducting a nucelar programme for any reason in today's world and if I was not a US ally, I'd be doing it as secretly as possible. Indeed I'd be doing it as many miles underground as possible, out of sight of spy satellites and nosy UN inspectors. I'd wait until I actually had a nuclear bomb or two, then I'd announce it to the world in a spectacular above-ground blast no-one could deny, when it'd be too late to stop me.

None of this seems to add up, unless Ahmadinejad actually WANTS the USA to attack Iran. Maybe that'll be the straw that breaks the camel's back and starts all out war between Islamic countries and the West, dragging in those countries like Russia and China unwilling to see almost ALL the main oil sources under US control......World War Three anyone?

"Today, people are on the streets every day; they have abandoned fear, and are fighting tooth and nail to start their revolution"

And if the US invade, all of these protesting people will probably be slaughtered along with everyine else. Frying pan to fire....just like Iraq.

Meanwhile another story slips under the radar, how the USA allowed North Korea to ship arms to Ethiopia despite its own lobbying to sucessfully get a UN embargo placed on North Korea for continuing its nuclear programme last autumn. The arms shipment came after the UN sanctions and was done with US knowledge and approval. Mainly because the Ethiopians intended using them to fight Islamist groups along the border. Rules and laws are very flexible things indeed when they 'need' to be!!

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Peace
Date: 15 Apr 07 - 01:03 AM

The American commander in the Pacific says he hes enough troops to handle North Korea shoud it invade the South. He has 128,000 and South Korea has 690,000. Doesn't sound much like folks thinking about peace.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Peace
Date: 15 Apr 07 - 01:09 AM

Sorry. He has 28,000 . . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 15 Apr 07 - 03:14 AM

Nickhere - Ahmadinejad is a politician with an election coming up. He ran on a platform of bringing nuclear power to the Iranian people to improve their civilian infrastructure. He doesn't really care what the outside world thinks, he is focussed on getting votes inside Iran. All of his posturing is politically motivated. He does not make policy and he does not command the military.

He's sort of a one man horse and pony show. I think everyone takes him entirely too seriously. I also think that as far as the Iranian people are concerned, his political life is over. I just hope the U.S. doesn't jump the gun. If they refrain from intervening at this point, the Iranians will take care of their own problems and Ahmadinejad is one of them.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Apr 07 - 03:34 AM

Something that Nickhere can't figure:

"Iran MUST know that it's open nuclear programme is an open invitation to be attacked by the USA, whether it's for peaceful purposes or not."

A number of points that Nickhere omits to mention that would help him figure things out:

1) Iran's nuclear programme has been far from "open" - One glance through last November's IAEA report to the UN which details Iran's non-compliance under the terms and conditions of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty illustrates that.

2) "The Iranian president saves US intelligence a load of work by giving step-by-step updates about the progress of his nuclear programme, while evn listing places where it's going on (Nanatz)."

Perhaps Nickhere was elsewhere, incommunicado, when the existence of Iran's secret uranium enrichment facilities were revealed in 2002. But just to put Nick right on the matter, no member of Iran's government or member of any of their ruling councils had anything to do with exposing the existence of those sites, that was down to a number of Iranian dissidents who were and still are extremely worried about Iran's nuclear programme and where it might lead.

3) I do not believe that there are many in this world that truly believe that Iran's pursuit of nuclear power has any other goal than to acquire nuclear weapons as quickly as possible.

4) To date the United States of America has not threatened Iran. Iran on the other hand has beeen threatening America on a regular basis (Every Friday) since 1979 and has advocated that a sovereign state and recognised member of the United Nations be wiped off the map.

Amos take a good look at the picture of the "hanged" woman in Iran. Please note the means used to hang her - a mobile crane. Normally when sentenced to die on a gallows the neck is broken and death is instantaneous. Death by hanging as performed in Iran is slow strangulation as the person sentenced is hoisted, not pleasant.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Apr 07 - 04:12 PM

image of crane hangings Iran

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Apr 07 - 04:24 PM

Image and report about hanging gay teenagers Iran

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: bobad
Date: 18 Apr 07 - 07:20 PM

Bush has tipped his hand (according to the Huffington Post)


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-a-palermo/michael-gordon-outdoes-ju_b_41097.html

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 18 Apr 07 - 11:51 PM

Good link, bobad.

Yes, the propaganda is getting thick. The U.S. wants to blame Iran for the high-powered weapons being used by the insurgency when in fact the al qaeda linked Sunnis are more than capable of making their own rockets and other weapons.

"Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis had been employed in Saddam's huge arms industry, making artillery shells, rifles, land mines, mortars and missiles. The military factories have been abandoned or looted but some of the workers are thought to have joined the insurgency or offered their expertise in the fight against U.S. forces and their Iraqi allies."

In addition, they have Russian made arms and perhaps some from Syria and Iran. I wouldn't doubt that some Iranian weapons are making it across the border to Iraq but the U.S. has no proof that it is sanctioned by the Iranian govt. Besides that, Syria and Iran do have a stake in what happens in Iran so whats the surprise?

But the propaganda machine continues to churn and the public will soon believe that it is necessary for an invasion of Iran because they are supplying weapons that kill American soldiers in Iraq. In fact, most of the weapons are being produced by Iraqis in Iraq, many with materials that were looted shortly after the U.S. invaded Iraq by Sunnis loyal to Saddam who are being backed by al Qaeda, not Iran!

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 19 Apr 07 - 12:05 AM

Sorry. I forgot the link for my quote.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6564035,00.html

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 19 Apr 07 - 12:24 AM

Iran. They would be crazy not to develop nuclear weapons. They see this as their only ace in the hole. Israel would love to nuke 'em and could do it.

Many here are laboring under the misapprehension that Bush is in possesion of his faculties. He might try to nuke Iran.

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Apr 07 - 03:40 AM

Couple of questions in response to some very bold assertions made by Frank Hamilton:

- "Israel would love to nuke 'em and could do it."

Have you any substantive evidence whatsoever for making that statement Frank. Or is it just a wild, trendy-leftist, right-on thing to spout by way of an attempt to excuse the inexcusable conduct of the regime currently in power in Iran?

- "Bush" .... "might try to nuke Iran."

Again Frank anything at all to back this up? To date, as far as I am aware the USA has not threatened Iran in any way shape or form. The United Nations has, however, unanimously agreed to impose certain sanctions on the recommendation of the IAEA, as have members of the EU.

The belief that the developement and acquisition of nuclear weapons would be of some benefit to Iran is erroneous, far from bolstering that country's security, the possession of such weapons dramatically reduces it.

One misconception that most seem to be labouring under is the belief that the big, bad US would have to "invade" Iran, it doesn't and I don't believe for a second that it would unless of course Iran attacked Iraq first.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Apr 07 - 04:29 AM

Perhaps we should add Pakistan to the list.
The government has never fully controlled the tribal areas and now seems to be giving up parts of the main cities to the fundamentalists.
There is a real prospect of Taleban/Al Quieda seizing power.
Pakistan has nuclear weapons.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 23 Apr 07 - 11:14 AM

Iran in the eye of storm (a long research paper)

The author sees a USA-Iran war as very likely though he hopes he is wrong.

The Iran crisis is indeed a significant symptom of a unilateral world order on the verge of collapse. To prevent a catastrophic conflagration, an unbiased engagement by the European Union is indispensable in order to decrease the regional security dilemma by ultimately establishing a nuclear-free Near and Middle East zone. Europe should assume responsibility vis-à-vis her neighboring region, for surrendering to New Order fantasies à l’Américaine will heavily harm her own interests.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Amos
Date: 23 Apr 07 - 12:15 PM

"The editors at The New York Times could save money by cutting out Michael Gordon as the middleman, and instead just reprint Bush Administration press releases on their front page. In this piece of "journalism," Gordon makes Judith Miller look like I.F. Stone.

Nevertheless, Gordon's article is extremely important because in it Bush has tipped his hand. He is going to attack Iran. And the editors of The New York Times have tipped their hand too. They are on board.

The question is: Will the Congress and the American people, after what has transpired in Iraq, fall for yet another media-hyped call for war?"

The sentiment of the people of Iran in general is positively pro-Western. It would be a serious error to force this nation into a war stance. THey aren't well organized enough to stand up in a war, but the point is that if things were handled correctly, Iran could become a major Western ally. The right-wing extremism of the few hard-core ayatollah types does not reflect the politics or sentiment of most people in Iran. When crack-downs occasionally occur trying to enforce stricter observance of various religious behaviours on people, the broad response is to go along until it dies out and then resume the more Western style. At least this seems to be the case in the large middle class of Tehran.

US interests would be MUCH better served in securing the alliance of this middle class and helping it salvage the poorly managed economy .

A

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Apr 07 - 06:35 PM

Oh, I see Amos, the 12 Old-Gits who run the Islamic Fundamentalist Republic of Iran are, how did you put it, right-wing extremist, hard-core ayatollah types. In an Islamic Fundamentalist Regime exactly where does extreme right or left enter the equation Amos?

But there is one thing about which you are perfectly correct Amos, the 12 Old-Gits who run Iran have never made any attempt or pretence of reflecting the politics or sentiment of most people in Iran. Its the other way about, the 12 Old-Gits just tell the people of Iran what their politics and their sentiments are going to be.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Amos
Date: 23 Apr 07 - 06:40 PM

My impressions are from an American Iranian who has just returned from a visit home.

Where are yours from?

In any case, it would be a serious error to force Iran into war, when they could be made into allies.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Nickhere
Date: 23 Apr 07 - 07:07 PM

ABC News Exclusive: The Secret War Against Iran
>
> ABC News - April 03, 2007 5:25 PM
>
> Brian Ross and Christopher Isham Report:
>
> > xclus.html>
>
> A Pakistani tribal militant group responsible for a
> series of deadly guerrilla raids inside Iran has been
> secretly encouraged and advised by American officials
> since 2005, U.S. and Pakistani intelligence sources
> tell ABC News.
>
> The group, called Jundullah, is made up of members of
> the Baluchi tribe and operates out of the Baluchistan
> province in Pakistan, just across the border from Iran.
>
> It has taken responsibility for the deaths and
> kidnappings of more than a dozen Iranian soldiers and
> officials.
>
> U.S. officials say the U.S. relationship with Jundullah
> is arranged so that the U.S. provides no funding to the
> group, which would require an official presidential
> order or "finding" as well as congressional oversight.
>
> Tribal sources tell ABC News that money for Jundullah
> is funneled to its youthful leader, Abd el Malik Regi,
> through Iranian exiles who have connections with
> European and Gulf states.
>
> Jundullah has produced its own videos showing Iranian
> soldiers and border guards it says it has captured and
> brought back to Pakistan.
>
> The leader, Regi, claims to have personally executed
> some of the Iranians.
>
> "He used to fight with the Taliban. He's part drug
> smuggler, part Taliban, part Sunni activist," said
> Alexis Debat, a senior fellow on counterterrorism at
> the Nixon Center and an ABC News consultant who
> recently met with Pakistani officials and tribal
> members.
>
> "Regi is essentially commanding a force of several
> hundred guerrilla fighters that stage attacks across
> the border into Iran on Iranian military officers,
> Iranian intelligence officers, kidnapping them,
> executing them on camera," Debat said.
>
> Most recently, Jundullah took credit for an attack in
> February that killed at least 11 members of the Iranian
> Revolutionary Guard riding on a bus in the Iranian city
> of Zahedan.
>
> Last month, Iranian state television broadcast what it
> said were confessions by those responsible for the bus
> attack.
>
> They reportedly admitted to being members of Jundullah
> and said they had been trained for the mission at a
> secret location in Pakistan.
>
> The Iranian TV broadcast is interspersed with the logo
> of the CIA, which the broadcast blamed for the plot.
>
> A CIA spokesperson said "the account of alleged CIA
> action is false" and reiterated that the U.S. provides
> no funding of the Jundullah group.
>
> Pakistani government sources say the secret campaign
> against Iran by Jundullah was on the agenda when Vice
> President Dick Cheney met with Pakistani President
> Pervez Musharraf in February.
>
> A senior U.S. government official said groups such as
> Jundullah have been helpful in tracking al Qaeda
> figures and that it was appropriate for the U.S. to
> deal with such groups in that context.
>
> Some former CIA officers say the arrangement is
> reminiscent of how the U.S. government used proxy
> armies, funded by other countries including Saudi
> Arabia, to destabilize the government of Nicaragua in
> the 1980s.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Apr 07 - 12:23 AM

When was it the USA was supposed to have launched their attack on Iran's nuclear sites according to extremely reliable Russian sources again? Little Hawk should know he put so much faith into the report.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Dickey
Date: 24 Apr 07 - 12:42 AM

The fate of children in Iran

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Amos
Date: 24 Apr 07 - 01:23 AM

Dickey:

ANother one of your madcap generalizations, eh, mad dog?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 24 Apr 07 - 01:54 AM

Dickey - What is it you are trying to say?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Dickey
Date: 24 Apr 07 - 10:34 AM

The fate of children in North Korea

Tyrannical dictatorships use starvation as a means of control and ethnic cleansing. In rural areas of North Korea, there is no food, clean water, medicine or fuel for heat.

Humanitarian relief experts report that more than 4 million North Koreans, including children, have died of starvation since 1995, despite the fact that North Korea receives more food aid than any other nation in the world.

Eye witnesses report that President Kim Jong II stockpiles food for the military. Others report that the president also sells donated food for cash.

http://www.facesofchildren.net/wherearegodschildren.html

---

N. Korean defector says disabled newborns are killed
http://civilliberty.about.com/b/a/255118.htm

SEOUL (Reuters) - North Korea has no people with physical disabilities because they are killed almost as soon as they are born, a physician who defected from the communist state said on Wednesday.

Ri Kwang-chol, who fled to the South last year, told a forum of rights activists that the practice of killing newborns was widespread but denied he himself took part in it.

"There are no people with physical defects in North Korea," Ri told members of the New Right Union, which groups local activists and North Korean refugees.

He said babies born with physical disabilities were killed in infancy in hospitals or in homes and were quickly buried.

The practice is encouraged by the state, Ri said, as a way of purifying the masses and eliminating people who might be considered "different."


A North Korean female refugee in a state of extreme malnutrition says she lost all other family members due to starvation before fleeing to China.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 24 Apr 07 - 12:49 PM

Dickey -

If you are going to post pictures, we need a citation.

If you're going to show us pictures of children who are mistreated and/or neglected, you need to tell us why you are posting the pictures.

btw - What does that have to do with invading either Iran or Korea? You don't think that is why the U.S. goes to war, do you? Grab a brain. If that were the case, we'd be in Darfur and any number of other countries.

Your last post is completely off topic.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Dickey
Date: 25 Apr 07 - 12:34 AM

Dianavan:

I am showing the state of affairs, mainly huiman rights in the two countries so people can decide which one to attack next.

The source is Google images.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Amos
Date: 25 Apr 07 - 02:58 AM

Dickey:

SIngle instances do not substantiate generalized conditions.

Get smart.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 25 Apr 07 - 07:09 AM

Shia Muslims mark Ashura

What Dickey has linked to is a not uncommon religious practice found among Shia Muslims. As ugly as this practice looks to me it is not a good reason for an attack. BTW, if one reads the article one finds for instance this sentence: In Iran, the blood-letting is banned and many fatwas, or religious rulings, have been issued declaring the custom forbidden.

The general starvation in North Korea, however, is well documented and not a question of just single instances. It is stupid to attack this piece of information for fear it might be used as an excuse for an attack. The right thing to do is to question the potential use of the correct information as an excuse for an attack. But:

There will be no attack on North Korea, neither with nor without excuse. Regarding North Korea, the Bush government has made some good moves in the last two years that have been answered as it was hoped by the dictator. That case is closed.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Dickey
Date: 26 Apr 07 - 02:40 PM

A good critique Wolfgang but I can't help sharing these images I run across that illustrate what happens in other countrys. It is like being hit with a two by four between the eyes.

Take for instance this kid's TV animation produced in Iran to brainwash Palestinian children.

There are other examples here.

And even a search engine here.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Apr 07 - 08:33 PM

Good heavens Dickey, can't wait to hear dianavan's take on those as suitable viewing for children.

By the bye do you have any similar footage for Israeli children? Do you have any similar footage for children under declared Muslim threats of violence in Europe or in the USA?

These being shown on Arabic MSM, Yes?

What wonderful balanced and tolerant people they must be, yet not one word do they report about Muslim atrocities in Darfur, wonder why? No doubt there will be many on this forum who will rush to their defence.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 26 Apr 07 - 09:39 PM

Are you trying to say that because you don't agree with Iranian propaganda and Iranian religion we should invade them? Remember, the people of of Iran despised the Shah and actually wanted a theocracy. Also try to remember that we are not the police of the world. Last time I checked, nobody gave us the right to impose our cultural values by creating a war.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Apr 07 - 01:31 AM

Dianavan, put extremely bluntly, Iranian propoganda and Iranian religion are being blatantly used to incite racial hatred amongst the most impressionable and vulnerable people in their society. Exactly what chance do they have of EVER reaching a rational and reasoned outlook on problems in their region after having been fed this diet of hate-filled trash. Mind you it seems to be the norm for Muslim leaders in that part of the world to lie to their followers in order to create conflict for their own ends.

By the bye dianavan, exactly who has threatened to invade Iran, or anywhere else for that matter.

Why would the US ever have to invade Iran dianavan? Even in a conflict situation. Everything you claim that the US may wish to do could be achieved without a single US serviceman ever setting foot on Iranian soil.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 27 Apr 07 - 03:16 AM

"Exactly what chance do they have of EVER reaching a rational and reasoned outlook on problems in their region after having been fed this diet of hate-filled trash."

Probably about the same as children in the U.S. growing up on a diet of violent video games, internet porn, trash T.V. and rap. Cho is just the tip of the iceberg.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Apr 07 - 07:28 AM

Iran, EU 'closer' on nuclear talks
POSTED: 10:45 a.m. EDT, April 26, 2007

ANKARA, Turkey (AP) -- Iran's top nuclear negotiator said Thursday that talks with a senior EU official had brought the two men closer to "a united view" of how to break a deadlock over Tehran's defiance of a U.N. Security Council demand to freeze uranium enrichment.

The upbeat comments by Ali Larijani boosted expectations that he and Javier Solana, the European Union's top foreign policy official, had chipped away at differences over enrichment -- a potential pathway to nuclear arms -- in two straight days of talks.

"In some areas we are approaching a united view," Larijani told reporters after a breakfast meeting with Solana and Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul. "We are aiming to reach out for a common paradigm."

Solana spoke of a "good meeting," adding: "We cannot make miracles, but we tried to move ... the (nuclear) dossier forward.

"The fact that we are together again is itself a very important development," he said, alluding to the last time the two men met -- in September talks that collapsed over the enrichment issue.

Neither revealed details of their talks. But a government official based in a European capital said the two touched on possible new discussions of what constituted a suspension of enrichment and related activities.

A new definition of an enrichment freeze acceptable to both sides was "the key issue," said the official, who demanded anonymity in exchange for discussing the confidential information with The Associated Press.

In an interview with CNN-Turk television, Larijani said "new ideas" had emerged.

"I can't give exact details because these ideas need more time to be developed. But I can call them a very positive, concrete first step," he said. Larijani also said another meeting on the nuclear issue would be held in two weeks, but he did not specify the location.

There also was mention of a "double time out" -- a simultaneous freeze of such activities in exchange for a commitment not to impose new U.N. sanctions, said the official, who was briefed on the outcome of the meeting.

The "double time out" concept is supported by International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei and is part of a confidential document shared on Wednesday with the AP.

The one-page document, based on a Swiss initiative, proposes that during such a double-moratorium "Iran will not develop any further its enrichment activities," and the six powers "will not table any additional U.N. resolutions and sanctions."

Diplomats said that the document is opposed by the U.S., Britain and France but that parts of it could nonetheless serve as the basis of a later agreement that could lead to formal negotiations.

Solana was meeting with Larijani on behalf of the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany -- the countries at the forefront of international efforts to pressure Iran to make nuclear concessions.

Government officials outside Turkey had told the AP ahead of the meeting that the six powers Solana represented ultimately may be willing to allow Iran to keep some of its uranium enrichment program intact, instead of demanding it be completely dismantled.

That would be a major development: The U.S. in particular publicly continues to insist that Iran needs to mothball all enrichment and related activities.

Still, the Ankara meetings are only preliminary discussions meant to establish if there is enough common ground for further talks between the two men that could lead to the resumption of formal nuclear negotiations between the six powers and Iran.

Iran's defiance of a U.N. Security Council demands on enrichment has led to two sets of sanctions against the country.

Iran argues the sanctions are illegal, noting it has the right to enrich uranium to generate nuclear power under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

Iranian officials say nuclear power is the only purpose of their program, dismissing suspicions that they ultimately want weapons-grade uranium for the fissile core of nuclear warheads.

But the U.S. and others say past suspicious nuclear activities, including a program Iran kept secret for nearly two decades, set the country apart from others that have endorsed the treaty.

Negotiations broke down last year when the Iranian government refused to suspend enrichment in exchange for a package of economic and political inducements, including help in developing a peaceful nuclear program.

Solana was expected to brief Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice next week, when he attends an EU-U.S. summit in Washington, as well as the foreign ministers of the other five major powers. They, in turn were likely to set ground rules for the next meeting between the two.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Apr 07 - 07:53 AM

Signs of A Spring Thaw
Interest on Both Sides In U.S.-Iran Talks

By David Ignatius
Friday, April 27, 2007; Page A23

Sometimes big developments are hidden in plain sight, and that appears to be the case with Iran and the United States. The two countries have moved over the past year from mutual isolation to the edge of serious diplomatic discussions.

The Bush administration is aggressively signaling that it wants such a dialogue. But the Iranians, who seem convinced they have the upper hand, are being coy. They still seem unsure whether Iran's national interests are best served by a deepening confrontation with America or by a policy of engagement.

The decisions the Iranian leadership makes over the next several weeks about diplomatic strategy will shape Iran's future, as well as that of the Middle East. Given the stakes, it's likely that whatever decision they make will initially be hedged -- not quite engagement or not quite rejection. As in a commercial transaction in Tehran's covered bazaar, this negotiation won't be quick or direct.

But a process of bargaining is underway between Iran and America. That's what became clear this week, in two different diplomatic channels. And it marks a change from the isolation and intense suspicion that have prevailed for most of the 28 years since the Iranian revolution of 1979.

Iranian pragmatists who favor discussions with the United States say that the diplomatic ground is now well prepared for moving forward. One Iranian source cautions that there are factions in both Washington and Tehran that favor a continuation of the stalemate but that they are not a majority. "The majority in both capitals must make a decision to go for a solution," he says.

The first diplomatic channel involves the Iranian nuclear program. Javier Solana, the European Union's top diplomat, met yesterday and Wednesday in Ankara with Ali Larijani, Iran's national security adviser. Details of the conversation are fuzzy, but the crucial point is that they agreed to meet again in two weeks for what, in effect, will be a resumption of the "E.U.-3" talks on Iran's nuclear program.

Solana's message to Larijani was that Iran should sit down at the negotiating table before the current set of United Nations sanctions expires May 24 and the Security Council moves to consider a tougher third round of sanctions. Solana envisions a complicated minuet in which the Iranians would perhaps meet in mid-May with representatives of France, Britain and Germany -- maybe joined by Russian and Chinese diplomats. It's hoped that the meeting would produce a deal -- "suspension for suspension" is what the diplomats are calling it -- in which U.N. sanctions would be lifted in exchange for an Iranian pledge to stop enriching uranium during the course of negotiations. If Solana's diplomatic dance is successful, the United States would join the talks.

Nobody has yet floated a formula that would actually bridge the wide U.S.-Iranian differences over the nuclear issue, but then that's what diplomatic negotiations are all about. Iranian officials argue privately that Solana must be given enough latitude to find a solution that's acceptable to both sides. If the talks simply restate existing positions, cautions one Iranian source, they will fail.

To reassure the Iranians, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice took the unusual step of disavowing any U.S. plans for regime change. "It [regime change] was not the policy of the U.S. government. The policy was to have a change in regime behavior," she said in an interview Monday in the Financial Times.

A second diplomatic channel to Iran will open next week, when Rice travels to the Egyptian resort of Sharm el-Sheikh for a meeting with Iraq's neighbors, including Iran and Syria. Although Iran is expected to attend, Iranian officials caution that their foreign minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, may stay away unless the United States signals that it intends to release five Iranian officials seized in January in the northern Iraq city of Irbil.

Rice wants bilateral meetings with Iranian and Syrian representatives at the "neighbors" meeting. And State Department officials say they hope the meeting will be the start of regular discussions with Iran and Syria about how to stabilize Iraq. In that sense, the administration is fully ready to embrace the diplomatic recommendations of the Baker-Hamilton report.

The door is opening on the possibility of the first real U.S.-Iranian negotiations since 1979. Both sides have to decide they want them -- and ignore the powerful voices in each capital that argue for confrontation.

The writer co-hosts, with Newsweek's Fareed Zakaria, PostGlobal, an online discussion of international issues athttp://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal. His e-mail address [e-mail].

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Apr 07 - 12:39 PM

Bush to North Korea: Patience 'not unlimited'
POSTED: 12:21 p.m. EDT, April 27, 2007

Story Highlights• Bush, Japanese prime minister threaten new sanctions against N. Korea
• Bush: Pyongyang faces "price to pay" if promises not kept
• Japan's Shinzo Abe threatens "tougher response"
• Abe making first visit to U.S. as Japan's prime minister

CAMP DAVID, Maryland (AP) -- President Bush and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe demanded on Friday that North Korea live up to its promises and abandon its nuclear weapons program.

The two leaders threatened more sanctions against Pyongyang.

"There's a price to pay," Bush said, standing alongside Abe at the presidential retreat in the Maryland mountains. (Watch why Japan has special concerns about North Korea )

"Our partners in the six-party talks are patient, but our patience is not unlimited," Bush said, referring to disarmament negotiations between the United States, Japan, China, Russia, South Korea and North Korea

For his part, Abe said, "We completely see eye to eye on this matter. They need to respond properly on these issues. Otherwise we will have to take a tougher response on our side."

North Korea missed a deadline to shut down its nuclear reactor under an agreement reached in February.

Bush's words appeared to be an attempt to persuade Abe that the United States is not softening its stance on North Korea.

Japan is already withholding economic and food aid to the reclusive communist regime.

Abe said that sanctions "will worsen" if North Korea continues to defy the international community.

On another subject, Abe apologized for the Japanese military's actions in forcing women to work in military brothels during World War II. He said he wanted to "express my apologies that they were placed in that circumstance."

Abe created a controversy recently by suggesting their was no evidence Japan's Imperial Army had directly coerced the so-called "comfort women" to work in brothels.

In his Camp David remarks, Abe said he had apologized for those remarks in his meetings with members of Congress on Thursday, and again with Bush on Friday.

Bush said the comfort women situation was "a regrettable chapter in the history of the world. And I accept the prime minister's apology."

Abe expressed "deep-hearted sympathies" for the comfort women, saying they had been placed "in extreme hardship."

At the same time, Abe said that "human rights were violated in many parts of the world" at the time. "So we have to make the 21st century a century in which no human rights are violated," he said. He pledged to make "a significant contribution to this end."

On the North Korea issue, Bush said, "We expect North Korea to meet all its commitments under the February 13th agreement. And we will continue working closely with our partners."

A U.S. decision to allow the return of $25 million in disputed North Korean money in an attempt to move the disarmament process forward has been criticized in Japan as a sign of softness.

Bush addressed this issue. "There's a financial arrangement that we're now trying to clarify for the North Koreans, so that that will enable them to have no excuse for moving forward. And that's where we are right now," he said.

"I think it's wise to show the North Korean leader as well that there's a better way forward. I wouldn't call that soft," said Bush.

On another nuclear weapons issue, Bush also said that "we speak with one voice to the regime in Iran. Our nations have fully implemented the sanctions imposed by the U.N. Security Council in response to Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons.

"Further defiance by Iran will only lead to additional sanctions and to further isolation from the international community," Bush said.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Dickey
Date: 27 Apr 07 - 04:40 PM

Dianavan: The animations are not "Iranian propaganda and Iranian religion" It is brainwashing children, creating terrorisim and promoting war instead of peace.

Is that OK with you or do you think it should be opposed?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 27 Apr 07 - 04:46 PM

I think it should be opposed by Iranians.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Dickey
Date: 28 Apr 07 - 02:47 AM

By that logic, no one can oppose what goes on in the us except Americans.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 28 Apr 07 - 03:35 AM

"I am showing the state of affairs, mainly huiman rights in the two countries so people can decide which one to attack next" - Dickey

Based on the statement above, I thought you were suggesting that we should attack Iran.

I am saying that we can oppose the policies of Iran but that if change is to occur, it must change from within and by the Iranian people. We have no business attacking them because we don't approve of their social system or their religion.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Dickey
Date: 28 Apr 07 - 12:09 PM

The title is Who's next? Iran or Korea. It was started in )4 so I assume it meant which country was next for a regime change.

Korea is promoting terrorisim by selling or threatening to sell nukes to terrorists.

Iran is promoting terrorisim by producing terrorist propaganda to be desiminated outside of Iran, training, equiping and supporting Hezbollah to execute and promote terrorisim outside of Iran and take over other soveriegn governments.

So you are saying leave them alone? Should the UN leave them alone and quit passing all those nasty resolutions?

I think economisc sanctions are the best way to deal with both but other UN "members" will not follow along.

I really don't understand why a country is not kicked out of the UN when it defies a UN resolution.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 28 Apr 07 - 05:53 PM

"I really don't understand why a country is not kicked out of the UN when it defies a UN resolution." - Dickey

Which country and which resolution? You'll have to be a little more specific. When you figure out what you're talking about, please include a source.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 29 Apr 07 - 03:20 AM

Yeah, sure, why not invade both Iran and Korea because they are immoral.

Trouble is, the U.S. seems to be on very friendly terms with the Kurds who were involved with the Armenian genocide and practice honour killings at the drop of the hat. They also support Afghanistan, who has seen a resurgence of traditional dog fights, which the Taliban forbade. I've also heard that in areas where the Taliban are gone, the women are very reluctant to take off their veils.

I don't think there are very many countries who are squeaky clean and the U.S. is certainly not morally superior - nor are Jews or Christians or Muslims. Seems to me that all of 'the people of the book' are going through some kind of ritual cleansing.

I wonder if after Armegeddon, only Hindus and Buddhists will remain.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 May 07 - 02:49 PM

Iran won't budget at nuke meeting By GEORGE JAHN, Associated Press Writer
Fri May 4, 7:24 AM ET



VIENNA, Austria - A standoff pitting       Iran against most others delegations at a 130-nation nuclear conference deepened Friday, with organizers adjourning the third straight session in as many days without breaking a deadlock over the language of the meeting's agenda.

At issue is Tehran's refusal to accept a phrase calling for the "need for full compliance with" the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

That position has delayed adoption of the agenda since the conference opened Monday. Tehran argues the language could lead it to become a target at the meeting because of its refusal to heed       U.N. Security Council demands to cease uranium enrichment and other parts of its nuclear program that could be misused to make nuclear weapons.

In a move to placate Iran, conference chairman Yukiya Amano of Japan — who drew up the agenda — told the meeting his intention was to make clear in the text that "compliance with the treaty is compliance with all provisions of the treaty" — an allusion to commitments by nuclear weapons states to disarm.

Still, the fact that he immediately adjourned the session until late afternoon reflected the continued need for back-room negotiations meant to find a common position that would allow the meeting to begin taking up substantive issues.

And Amano said he would not reopen the agenda text for revision, a move that would likely harden Iran's stance at the meeting.

Iran has said it is determined to expand its disputed nuclear program and further defy U.N. demands that it freeze all preparations for enrichment, a potential pathway to nuclear arms.

Before Friday's brief noon session, diplomats familiar with Iran's nuclear program said Tehran had recently set up more centrifuges at its underground uranium enrichment plant at Natanz, bringing the number of machines ready to spin uranium gas into enriched form to more than 1,600.

The diplomats spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to comment on internal conference matters to the media.

An       International Atomic Energy Agency document obtained last month said the Islamic regime was running more than 1,300 centrifuge machines to enrich uranium at its Natanz facility.

Its ultimate goal is to have 50,000 centrifuges. That would be enough to supply fuel for what Tehran says is a planned network of atomic reactors to generate electricity — or material for a full-scale nuclear weapons program.

The expansion of Iran's enrichment program is also linked to the main issue of contention at the Vienna conference.

The delays led to growing pessimism about how much the meeting could accomplish before its scheduled end on May 11. Several delegates suggested that if the dispute remains unresolved by early next week, the conference could be dissolved.

Rebecca E. Johnson, of the Acronym Institute for Disarmament Diplomacy in London, said the standoff evoked memories of the 2005 Nonproliferation Treaty review conference which failed to make substantive progress because of similar bickering over procedural issues.

"The only people who will take heart from a disaster here will be those who seek to weaken the nonproliferation regime, either by wanting to get the next generation of nuclear weapons or ... who want to develop their own nuclear programs," she said in an indirect swipe both at the atomic arms states and Iran.

Iran maintains that its nuclear activities — including its enrichment program — comply with the treaty. However, its objections to the agenda language suggest it may be worried that emphasis on compliance with the treaty could be used against it in discussions at the conference.

Comments by Iranian chief delegate Ali Ashgar Soltanieh outside the conference appeared to support that view. Soltanieh told The Associated Press that his country was ready to drop its objections if the statement on compliance was expanded to specify that it also applied to disarmament by nations with nuclear weapons.

Several diplomats said Tehran had not formally submitted any proposed amendment. They suggested the Islamic republic was interested mostly in blocking the meeting out of concerns that it would be called to task for its defiance of U.N. demands that it freeze enrichment.

Those diplomats also spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to comment on conference matters.

The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty calls on nations to pledge not to pursue nuclear weapons in exchange for a commitment by five nuclear powers — the U.S., Russia, Britain, France and China — to move toward nuclear disarmament. India and Pakistan, known nuclear weapons states, remain outside the treaty, as does       Israel, which is considered to have such arms but has not acknowledged it.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 04 May 07 - 03:14 PM

Just out of curiosity; were India, Pakistan and Israel part of the 130 nations who were invited? If so, why so?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 May 07 - 07:45 AM

from the Washington Post:

Waiting on North Korea
The regime promised to take the first steps toward nuclear disarmament by April 14. It has not moved.

Tuesday, May 8, 2007; Page A24


ON FEB. 13, the North Korean government formally pledged to shut down in 60 days the nuclear reactor it has been using to produce plutonium for nuclear weapons, to accept the return of international inspectors to monitor the facility and to "discuss a list of all its nuclear programs" with the United States and the four other participants in the six-party talks. The agreement set up a concrete test of whether the regime of Kim Jong Il was prepared to give up its nuclear weapons program in exchange for economic aid and security guarantees.

Eighty-four days have passed since then -- and North Korea has fulfilled none of its pledges. In response, the Bush administration has remained largely silent, nursing the hope that Pyongyang will in the end comply. State Department officials say they still expect the Yongbyon reactor to be shut down, and we hope they're right. Still, it would be foolish for North Korea's negotiating partners not to take notice of how its behavior since Feb. 13 compares with the commitments it made.

Instead of shutting down its reactor or welcoming inspectors, North Korea has been focused entirely on extracting the maximum possible financial advantage from the United States. Alongside the Feb. 13 accord, the Bush administration said it would "resolve" the question of $25 million in North Korean funds that had been frozen in a Macau bank. The administration didn't say how it would resolve the matter; at the time, officials said they might be willing to release that part of the frozen funds that was not directly linked to criminal activities such as drug trafficking and counterfeiting of U.S. currency.

North Korea first made clear that it would take no action until the banking issue was settled by the unfreezing of its accounts. The administration conceded that. Then Pyongyang demanded all of its money back, including that linked to criminal activity. Again, the administration gave in; on April 10, it made all $25 million available for withdrawal. But that, too, failed to resolve the issue: Now the North is insisting that it be able to transfer the money to bank accounts in South Korea, Italy or Russia -- and thereby formally break the taboo the U.S. Treasury had managed to create on its use of the international banking system. Guess what? The Bush administration is once again going along.

Administration officials say all this, along with the breaking of the deadline by (so far) 24 days, will be worth it if the reactor is shut down. That's true. But it should be remembered that the commitments on which Pyongyang is currently in default are the first and easiest in what is supposed to be a three-stage process. As Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice noted in February, only if Kim Jong Il complied with the second stage -- by disclosing and disabling all nuclear facilities -- would it be possible to conclude that he had made a "strategic choice" to give up nuclear weapons. State Department negotiator Christopher Hill said last week that he still believed that that could happen by the end of this year. Again, we hope he's right. But so far, the record is this: In 84 days, North Korea has done nothing but extract concessions from the United States.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 May 07 - 07:38 AM

from the Washington Post:

Wrong Move in Iran
Arresting an Iranian American scholar is no way to win the world's respect.
Friday, May 11, 2007; Page A18


IF IRAN wants the world's respect, as its president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, claims, its Intelligence Ministry should immediately free Iranian American scholar Haleh Esfandiari.

Ms. Esfandiari, 67, the respected director of the Middle East Program at the Smithsonian Institution's Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, traveled to Iran to visit her sick 93-year-old mother last year. On her way to the airport to return to Washington in December, she was robbed at knifepoint and stripped of her Iranian and American passports. Since then she has been interrogated for 50 hours, according to her husband. The Intelligence Ministry's purpose in interrogating her is unclear, because the answers to most of its questions are available online at the Wilson Center Web site, said the center's director, Lee H. Hamilton. Interrogators have tried to coerce her into false confessions about her activities and the activities of the Wilson Center, which they seem to believe is driving U.S. policy against Iran. Finally, on Tuesday, she was locked up in Tehran's Evin Prison. Officials turned her mother away when she tried to visit.

Ms. Esfandiari, who holds dual U.S. and Iranian citizenship, is one of three Americans who are being held as "soft hostages" in Iran. Among them is a journalist for Radio Farda who also was arrested while visiting her ailing mother. Human Rights Watch places the total number of political dissidents currently imprisoned in Tehran under state security laws at around 50, and in the past week at least 16 others have been arrested around the country for various political activities.

Even within the context of these human rights abuses, Ms. Esfandiari's imprisonment is particularly poignant because she has been advocating dialogue and a restoration of diplomatic relations with Iran. Some Iranian Americans accuse her of being too "soft" on Tehran. Her arrest only tends to strengthen those who argue that the Ahmadinejad regime is too cruel and irrational to make an attempt at dialogue worthwhile.

Some scholars believe Ms. Esfandiari may be a pawn in the infighting in the Iranian government, too, with Mr. Ahmadinejad trying to create "enemies" to strengthen his position. But Ms. Esfandiari is no enemy of Iran, and her efforts to promote understanding are not causing the world to lose respect for Iran. Her imprisonment is.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 May 07 - 01:59 PM

Iran, North Korea seek to boost cooperation
Fri May 11, 10:50 AM ET

TEHRAN (Reuters) -       Iran and       North Korea have agreed to step up bilateral contacts, an Iranian news agency said on Friday, signaling closer ties between two countries which were part of U.S.       President George W. Bush's "axis of evil."

Iran's Foreign Minister Manoucher Mottaki signed the agreement with visiting North Korean Vice Foreign Minister Kim Yong-il on Thursday evening, the student news agency ISNA said.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's government "is interested in expanding ties with North Korea in the political, economical and cultural fields," Mottaki was quoted as saying.

"Therefore it is necessary to remove some barriers to provide and recognize new fields of cooperation," he said, suggesting North Korea's debt to Iran was one such barrier without giving details.

Under Thursday' accord, the foreign ministries of the two countries would every year send delegations to each other to "exchange ideas" over different international issues.

Bush branded the two countries as well as       Iraq as part of an "axis of evil" after he took office in 2001.

Since then, Iran has defied Western pressure to suspend its nuclear program, which the West fears is aimed at making atom bombs, a charge Tehran denies.

North Korea drew international condemnation when it conducted its first nuclear test in October, but agreed in February this year to shut its nuclear facilities in return for energy aid.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Dickey
Date: 12 May 07 - 12:11 AM

Iran Acknowledges Dealings With North Korea
Associated Press
May 11, 2007 10:22 p.m.

TEHRAN, Iran -- Iran's foreign minister said North Korea's debts stand in the way of improving ties between the two countries -- both U.S. foes under international pressure over their nuclear programs.

It was the first time an official of either country referred to their dealings, which go back to at least the 1980s but are not publicly known. The extent of North Korea's debts to Iran remains unknown.

North Korea's "debts to Tehran are among the obstacles in the way of cooperation," the official IRNA news agency quoted Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki as saying Friday. "The two countries can find a formula to remove this obstacle."

Mr. Mottaki met late Thursday with North Korean acting Foreign Minister Kim Yong Il. He added that Iran was still interested in improving ties with North Korea "in the fields of politics, economics and culture" with North Korea.

Mr. Kim said his country was ready to cooperate with Iran "in various economic fields" and support the country on the international level...



'

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

link for above http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117892742538900603.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Dickey
Date: 14 May 07 - 09:39 AM

Text of al-Zarqawi Safe-House Document Jun 15 2006

"... The question remains, how to draw the Americans into fighting a war against Iran? It is not known whether American is serious in its animosity towards Iraq, because of the big support Iran is offering to America in its war in Afghanistan and in Iraq. Hence, it is necessary first to exaggerate the Iranian danger and to convince America and the west in general, of the real danger coming from Iran, and this would be done by the following:

1. By disseminating threatening messages against American interests and the American people and attribute them to a Shi'a Iranian side.

2. By executing operations of kidnapping hostages and implicating the Shi'a Iranian side.

3. By advertising that Iran has chemical and nuclear weapons and is threatening the west with these weapons.

4. By executing exploding operations in the west and accusing Iran by planting Iranian Shi'a fingerprints and evidence.

5. By declaring the existence of a relationship between Iran and terrorist groups (as termed by the Americans).

6. By disseminating bogus messages about confessions showing that Iran is in possession of weapons of mass destruction or that there are attempts by the Iranian intelligence to undertake terrorist operations in America and the west and against western interests.

Let us hope for success and for God's help.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8I8LJBG0&show_article=1

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 14 May 07 - 11:44 AM

Yes, that information is about a year old.

It is, however, exactly why I believe that the Iranian threat is exagerrated and why I believe the U.S. and coalition forces should focus their efforts on Sunni insurgents rather than the Shia. Having said that, I also think that if the U.S. would go home, the Shitte militia, with the help of Iran, could easily defeat the Sunni/alQaeda insurgency. Iran is in a far better position to help Iraq than the U.S.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Dickey
Date: 14 May 07 - 09:42 PM

And after the Sunnis have been defeated????????????

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Dickey
Date: 15 May 07 - 09:59 AM

A. The middle east settles down and there will be peace.

B. Iran expands its Islamic totalitarian state to include Iraq, uses its power of oil exports to expand it's power over it's oil dependant enemies and Hezbollah gains a stronger foothold in the middle east causing more bloodshed an terrorisim.

C. ??????????????

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 May 07 - 12:46 PM

North Korea: Funds dispute nearly solved
By BURT HERMAN, Associated Press Writer
2 hours, 37 minutes ago


SEOUL, South Korea -       North Korea said Tuesday that steps were being taken to resolve a financial dispute that has blocked international efforts to halt its production of nuclear weapons in an indication of possible progress after weeks of delay.

North Korea has refused to start implementing a February agreement to shut down its nuclear reactor — missing a deadline that passed a month ago — until it receives funds from a bank in the Chinese territory of Macau that had been frozen after the bank was blacklisted by the United States in 2005.

North Korea's Foreign Ministry said it wanted to be able to "freely transfer funds."

"For this, works are under way so that funds at Macau's Banco Delta Asia can be transferred to our bank accounts at a third country," the ministry said in a statement carried by the official Korean Central News Agency.

The transfer has been held up because other banks have been reluctant to touch the $25 million in accounts that were freed with the blessing of the United States.

Washington has said the money was tied to alleged money laundering and counterfeiting by North Korea. Authorities say North Korea could withdraw the sum in cash, but it apparently wants to retrieve it through a bank wire transfer to prove the funds are now clean.

North Korea made the release of the money its main condition for halting its nuclear program, boycotting international arms negotiations for more than a year during which it conducted a weapons test in October.

On Tuesday, North Korea rebutted allegations it said were made in U.S. media that it had been using the funds dispute as a delaying tactic, and it repeated its commitment to the disarmament deal.

"Once the fund transfer is realized we are willing to immediately take steps to shut down our nuclear facility as agreed," the ministry said, adding it would invite U.N. nuclear inspectors and discuss the matter with the U.S.

"Once the Feb. 13 agreement gets implemented, our commitment will be clearly shown through our actions," the ministry said.

Earlier Tuesday, the U.S. ambassador to       South Korea called on the North to act on its pledge.

"It's time for North Korea to live up to its commitments," Alexander Vershbow told a security forum in Seoul. "The North has a lot to gain by ending its nuclear programs and getting rid of nuclear weapons."

Rewards include "economic assistance, normalized relations with the United States and a permanent peace regime for the Korean peninsula. ... In short, a fundamental transformation of the (North's) relations with the rest of the world and an end to its pariah status," he said.

The February deal calls for closing the reactor and disabling all of North Korea's nuclear facilities. Vershbow said Washington believes the action can be done in a "few months" and it hopes to achieve a complete denuclearization of North Korea before       President Bush leaves office in January 2009.

___

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Lepus Rex
Date: 15 May 07 - 01:08 PM

Yeah, Dickey. Becuase there's nothing Persian-controlled Iran would love more than to absorb twenty-seven and a half million Arabs and Kurds by annexing Iraq, turning the slight Persian majority of Iran into a plurality. And I'm sure they'd also be thrilled that nine million or so of those Arabs and Kurds were Sunni Muslims, as well. Fucking thrilled, I tell ya.

Keep the brilliant analysis coming, dude. If Condoleeza sees this, you may have a future in the State Department.

---Lepus Rex

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Dickey
Date: 15 May 07 - 03:36 PM

It was multiple choice with a fill in for none of the above.
It is the perfect opportunity for the clairvoiyants and Itoldjasos here to make their predictions.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 15 May 07 - 05:12 PM

Thanks, Lepus, you said it much better than I.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Dickey
Date: 15 May 07 - 06:25 PM

Howdy Doody could say it much better.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Lepus Rex
Date: 15 May 07 - 08:31 PM

And, Dickey? So you expressed your thoughts on the matter in the form of a multiple choice question. Choice number one was clearly a sarcastic crack at dianavan's position. And, based on your strongly anti-Muslim, anti-Arab, anti-Iranian posting history, clearly not your position. The only other option your brain could conjure up, choice number two, was the insanely alarmist wet-dream of an angry, impotent old white dude. Which would be you, no? And so, because what you wrote and what you thought was not just stupid, but bat-shit retarded, I corrected you.

And you could have taken my criticism, admitted that you're wrong and maybe, well, "less gifted," we'll call it, and moved on. Maybe done a little research, tried to improve yourself, somehow. But no. Dickey is smart, the world is dumb, nyah nyah nyah. Fine, I get it. You've got some weird hard-on for dead Muslims, and you're right to feel that way, damn it! So it's not racist that you do very little here other than try and drum up anti-Muslim feelings, usually with (à la beardebruce) damning, damning copy-pastes of the latest Muslim (always Muslim) atrocities. Or when you attempt to disguise your activities and deflect criticism by saying that's just you being a swell guy, spreading information to help people make up their minds. Bullshit. That's is the typical response of a bigot exposed. "I'm not a racist because I say 'I hates niggers because they want our white wimmin.' I'm just a good ol' boy, telling it like it is," etc. Half-closeted bigots like you are, unfortunately, fairly common here, and everywhere. Big deal. I'm used to it.

What really disturbs me about you was something you did earlier in this thread, for which you were taken to task by Wolfgang: You misrepresented an image of an infant being smeared with blood from a knife at a Shi'a Ashura ceremony as "The fate of children in Iran." (emphasis mine) By using the word "fate," you implied the worst, and I'd say crossed the line from tasteless fear-mongering into the realm of good old fashioned blood libel. That makes you a bad person, Dickie. That makes me not like you. And that's why, from time to time, I'll try and stop by and humiliate you when you say something crazy like "Iran expands its Islamic totalitarian state to include Iraq, uses its power of oil exports to expand it's power over it's oil dependant enemies and Hezbollah gains a stronger foothold in the middle east causing more bloodshed an terrorisim." So stop pretending you're capable of having an opinion of your own, and just go back to copy-pasting your bullshit articles, beardedbruce Jr. Then you can just whine and point your finger at the reporters when I say you're full of shit.

---Lepus Rex

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Dickey
Date: 15 May 07 - 11:30 PM

So what is your answer Lepus?

You do have an answer and not just a personal attack on someone you disagree with don't you?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Lepus Rex
Date: 16 May 07 - 12:07 AM

Uh, no, Dickey. I have no answer to your question. Perhaps if I felt that the "Sunnis" ought to be "defeated," I might feel the urge to actually give a fuck about your question. But, alas, no.

But, yes, I do disagree with your racism. And, yes, you're right: that is why I attacked you. Bravo! You got it. See? You're learning already!

---Lepus Rex

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Dickey
Date: 16 May 07 - 11:42 PM

Dear Rex:

It was Dianavan who said "if the U.S. would go home, the Shitte militia, with the help of Iran, could easily defeat the Sunni/alQaeda insurgency"

I asked what would happen after the Sunnis were defeated. Dianavan had nothing to say so I posed it as a multiple choice opended question.

Apparently you cannot answer the question but attack the asker of the question as being racist.

I don't think either should be defeated but brought together. al Quaeda is causing the Sunnis to fight the Shia and Iran is causing the Shia to fight the Sunnis.

Hopefully they will realize the it is not doing either of them any good and who is really causing the problems. It is said that an insurgency lasts 9 or 10 years and they are usually defeated.

I do consider Iran an Islamic totalitarian state based on human rights issues alone which I have illustrated whith photos.

Would you like to see Iraq under Iranian rule?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 17 May 07 - 01:30 AM

"Would you like to see Iraq under Iranian rule?"

What makes you think Iran wants to rule Iraq? Iraq has its own Shiite majority and while they could use the support of Iran, its unlikely that Iraq or Iran are considering unification.

No, I would not like to see Iraq under U.S. rule. They have absolutely no understanding of the Iraqi cultural composition or traditions.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 May 07 - 11:00 AM

dianavan,


What makes you think the US wants to rule Iraq? The US has its own minority problems, its unlikely that Iraq or the US are considering unification.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST
Date: 17 May 07 - 04:53 PM

True enough.

The U.S., however, does rule Iraq by occupation. Iran does not.

The U.S. has made very little effort to protect Iraqi civilians or to support the Shiite dominated government. Bush continues to ally himself with the Sunnis thus fomenting civil war. If Iran supported the Iraqi govt., there would be no support for the Sunnis and they would have to abide by the wishes of the democratically elected majority.

This may not be what we in the west want but it is what the majority of Iraqis want.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 17 May 07 - 05:25 PM

Der Middle-East today und Tomorrow, Der Vorld!   Ach Tung!

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,Fox Viewer
Date: 17 May 07 - 07:00 PM

John Bolton said today or yesterday America should attack Iran as quickly as possible before they get any closer to a bomb. Just FYI.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: pirandello
Date: 17 May 07 - 07:24 PM

Firstly there is no possibility of anything remotely resembling a 'victory' for the laughably named 'Coalition of the Willing', of whom there are precious few left.
Whatever happens in the future, and whatever the wishes of a future Iraqi government, America will demand a presence in Iraq to guard the precious, bloody oil which was the motivation for this entire adventurist fiasco in the first place.

Secondly, America needs to tread very, very carefully when considering an attack on Iran; it's unlikely that Vladimir Putin would take kindly to GI's on his borders.

Thirdly, America needs to watch out for China in it's dealings with N. Korea; these are the big guys and are not to be fucked with.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Lepus Rex
Date: 17 May 07 - 10:35 PM

Oh, Dick. You were making such progress. I didn't call you a racist because of your moronic multiple-choice question. That's not racist, just... stupid. And choice number two in that "quiz" is what you think would happen if the Iraqi Shi'a "defeated" the Iraqi Sunni (whatever the fuck that would mean). It's totally in line with your statements in this and other threads. And it's still absolute bullshit. And yet you continue to blather on about "Iraq under Iranian rule." Even after it's been explained to you at length by several people why this will never happen... Do you really still not get it?

Now, you're a racist because you hate Muslims. Yanno, judging by your posting history. I mentioned it because, well, no-one else seemed to have noticed, or cared. Why are you a racist? As I've already mentioned, a large number of your posts are devoted to copy-pasting articles about Muslim "atrocities." Not Christian atrocites, not Hindu, not Rastafarian. Muslim. Only. You also devote a large number of your posts to documenting instances of Muslims supposedly "forcing" westerners to adapt to Islamic practices. Muslims. Only. And then there's that whole blood libel deal from last month. That's what sets you apart from the likes of beardedbruce. That revealed you to be absolute slime, dude. Even when corrected by Wolfgang, you defended your post as "sharing these images I run across that illustrate what happens in other countrys.(sic)" Oh, what "countrys" would those be? Lutheran? Catholic? No? Just Muslim? Huh, weird.

And then you defend your blood libel again last night, stating that the Ashura photo was how you illustrated that Iran is "an Islamic totalitarian state based on human rights issues alone." Although, if you weren't so lazy/stupid, you'd spend the big three minutes it would take to find out that bloodletting on Ashura is banned in Iran. Not that you give a fuck what the truth is.

---Lepus Rex

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Dickey
Date: 18 May 07 - 09:22 AM

Rex:

Are you defending human rights abuses it Iran?

Thursday, 5 April, 2001, 15:50 GMT 16:50 UK
Iran observes day of mourning

Shi'a Muslims mourn the death of Imam Hussein
Thousands of Iranians have taken part in the religious ceremony of Ashura which commemorates the death of the Imam Hussein at the battle of Kerbala in 680AD, the event which consecrated the rift between the Shi'a minority and the Sunni Muslim majority..."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1260131.stm

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 18 May 07 - 12:49 PM

Dickey is not only a racist, he deliberately spreads misinformation.

The blood letting ritual of Ashura is outlawed by the Supreme Ruler. Iranians continue, however, continue to ritualize the event by giving blood to the red cross and performing passion plays. Some may even flagellate themselves. This practice is not restricted to Muslims. Take a look at how some Christians celebrate at Easter.

http://www.ansar.org/images/saleeb.jpg

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Lepus Rex
Date: 18 May 07 - 01:24 PM

And how, exactly, are Iranian men beating themselves with their hands or with chains evidence of "human rights abuses it Iran"? As I said, such displays are officially banned by a fatwa issued by Ayatollah Ali Khamene'i, one of those eeeeevil clerics who rule Iran. Yanno, the main dude, with the beard, and the turban. Look it the fuck, you blockhead.

And still no apologies for the blood libel thing? Huh.

---Lepus Rex

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Lepus Rex
Date: 18 May 07 - 01:32 PM

Look it the fuck up, you blockhead, even.

---Lepus Rex

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Dickey
Date: 18 May 07 - 11:16 PM

In the capital Tehran large processions of men dressed in black beat themselves with bare hands or iron chains in rhythm in a show of sorrow, while women, who do not take part in self-flagellation in public, wept as they watched the procession.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Dickey
Date: 19 May 07 - 12:17 AM

Legalized Whore Houses in Iran Termed "Chastity Houses"

The Iranian government recently passed legislation which created legal whore-houses, brothels which would be officially liscensed under law as "Chastity Houses." Such a name is of course the epitome of Orwellian terminology, and the irony of the name should not be lost to anyone.
.
The Iranian clerics argued that the only way to solve the problem of prostitution is to bring it under state control. In recent weeks, several prominent conservative clerics have proposed that prostitutes be placed in government-run shelters for destitute women to be called "Chastity Houses," where male customers could briefly "marry" them under the Shia belief of Mutah. These brothels would then be run by the Iranian religious clerics, who would ensure that the couples use contraceptives and protective measures. Proponents of the idea argue that it would "eradicate social corruption" by legitimizing sexual relations between the men and women. Under the plan, the couples would register for a temporary marriage under Iran's Shia law.
.
One cleric backing the plan, Ayatollah Mohammed Mousavi Bojnurdi, recently told a newspaper: "We face a real challenge with all these women on the street. Our society is in an emergency situation, so the formation of the Chastity Houses can be an immediate solution to the problem." He added that the plan "is both realistic and conforms to Sharia [Islamic] law."
.
The Cultural Council for Women, a women's rights group, argue back that such houses would be a "deceitful and thinly disguised" form of prostitution. Reuters recently quoted Shahrbanou Amani, a female parliamentarian, as calling the Chastity Houses "an insult and disrespectful to women." Particularly discomforting is that there are hundreds of thousands of prostitutes in Tehran alone, and many of them are girls who are poverty-striken and forced into the now legalized prostitution that is so rampant in Iran.

http://shiism.blogspot.com/2006/01/legalized-whore-houses-in-iran-termed.html

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Lepus Rex
Date: 19 May 07 - 01:36 AM

Christ, Dick, what are you, a fucking parakeet? Yes, I read the article on the Ashura procession. And? How is this evidence of "human rights abuses (in) Iran?"

And what's your point with the (incredibly old) story about a loophole for legalised prostitution in Iran? Ooh, sinister "news!" The Netherlands... Nevada... and Iran? A new... AXIS OF EVIL?! :o

---Lepus Rex

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST
Date: 19 May 07 - 04:29 AM

Dickey - How is self flagellation a human rights abuse?

How is legalized prostitution a human rights abuse?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 19 May 07 - 04:30 AM

Me again up above without a cookie.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 19 May 07 - 07:55 AM

On the subject of the so called "Axis of Evil", I'd be interested to know what people think it referred to.

Now during the second world war the Allies fought the Axis Powers that axis consisting of Germany - Italy - Japan.

The Axis of Evil that the current President of the United States of America was referring to was not a similarly conformed axis of Iraq - Iran - North Korea. The axis he was referring to was any rogue state that allied itself to any terrorist organisation with an international agenda, he named Iraq, Iran and North Korea as being the most likely culprits.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 19 May 07 - 06:04 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Dickey
Date: 20 May 07 - 02:41 AM

Dickey - How is self flagellation a human rights abuse?

How is legalized prostitution a human rights abuse?

I never said they were.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 20 May 07 - 03:47 AM

Dickey - Your post of 18 May 07 - 09:22 AM indicated that you were referring to the rites of self flagellation as human rights abuse. If thats not what you meant, please explain yourself.

A man is only as good as his word.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 May 07 - 02:23 PM

IAEA: Iran atomic work defies U.N.
POSTED: 10:50 a.m. EDT, May 23, 2007
Adjust font size:
VIENNA, Austria (Reuters) -- Iran has not only ignored a U.N. Security Council deadline to stop uranium enrichment activity but expanded it, according to a confidential International Atomic Energy Agency report obtained by Reuters on Wednesday.

Iran's defiance of another 60-day deadline set by the Council when it imposed a second set of sanctions on March 24 will expose Tehran to tougher penalties over its nuclear work, which the West fears is a front for assembling atom bombs.

"Iran has not suspended its enrichment-related activities. Iran has continued with the operation of their pilot fuel enrichment plant and with construction of their (planned industrial underground) enrichment plant," the U.N. nuclear watchdog said in its report.

"It has started feeding cascades with UF6 (uranium gas). Iran has also continued with its heavy water-related projects."

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/05/23/iran.nuclear.reut/index.html

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 May 07 - 02:27 PM

Sources: Iran imprisons 4th Iranian-American
POSTED: 1:37 p.m. EDT, May 23, 2007

Story Highlights• Another Iranian-American is arrested in Tehran
• Colleague says his pregnant wife also briefly was detained
• Ex-lawmaker on another detainee: "We are just trying every lever" to free scholar
• U.S., Iranian diplomats are set to meet next week in Baghdad

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Iran recently imprisoned a fourth person of dual Iranian and American citizenship, the man's family and colleagues told CNN on Wednesday


http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/05/23/iran.detentions/index.html

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 23 May 07 - 02:39 PM

700! A first for me!

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 May 07 - 02:43 PM

Everyone deserves their own even-hundred post.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 May 07 - 07:22 PM

I would think it likely that those arrests are designed to put pressure on the US to release the Iranian officials who have been detained by the US authorities since January (against the wishes of the Iraq government).

Two wrongs don't make a right of course - and in any case I imagine that it's an ineffective way of exerting pressure, since it probably rather suits the US authorities to have Iran do this.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 May 07 - 03:25 PM

Iran: Atomic work near peak
POSTED: 2:16 p.m. EDT, May 24, 2007

Story Highlights• President Ahmadinejad says Iran's nuclear work almost at its "peak"
• IAEA: Iran at least three years from making a nuclear bomb if it so chooses
• U.S. President Bush calls for stronger round of U.N. sanctions against Iran

TEHRAN, Iran (Reuters) -- Iran's nuclear work is almost at its "peak", President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Thursday while the head of the U.N.'s atomic watchdog said Iran was probably at least three years from making a nuclear bomb if it so chooses.

Ahmadinejad dismissed Western pressure on Iran to halt its nuclear drive.

"With God's help the path to completely enjoying all nuclear capacity is near its end and we are close to the peak," Ahmadinejad said at a rally in the central town of Isfahan. (Watch how U.S. ships are putting pressure on Iran )

"The Iranian nation today has industrial nuclear technology and ... it will never retreat even one step from this path," he told the cheering crowd in a speech broadcast on television.

The Islamic Republic denies seeking nuclear weapons and says its program is aimed purely at generating electricity.

Underlining what he said was the growing risk of a major confrontation between the West and Iran, International Atomic Energy Agency head Mohamed ElBaradei appealed for the two sides to restart negotiations on a compromise as soon as possible.

"I tend, based on our analysis, to agree with people like John Negroponte and the new director of the CIA, who are saying that even if Iran wanted to go for a nuclear weapon, it would not be before the end of this decade or sometime in the middle of the next decade. In other words three to eight years from now," ElBaradei told a news conference in Luxembourg.

"Iran needs to suspend its enrichment activities as a confidence-building measure but the international community should do its utmost to engage Iran in comprehensive dialogue," ElBaradei told a conference on nuclear non-proliferation.

Big advances
The IAEA said in a report on Wednesday that Iran was making substantial advances in uranium enrichment. Several months ago, ElBaradei predicted Iran was four to eight years away from the capability to produce an atom bomb.

U.S. President George W. Bush said Washington would work with the European, Russian and Chinese leaders to impose a third, stronger round of U.N. sanctions against Iran.

"The first thing that these leaders have got to understand is that an Iran with a nuclear weapon would be incredibly destabilizing for the world. It's in their interests that we work collaboratively to continue to isolate that regime," he told a news conference.

Major powers last year offered Iran trade, technical and other incentives to suspend uranium enrichment. But negotiations proved fruitless and were called off before the U.N. Security Council imposed a first set of sanctions on Tehran.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel told parliament in Berlin that offer was still on the table, but if Iran did not meet its international obligations "the Security Council of the United Nations will continue to act decisively".

EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana has been charged with assessing the scope for returning to negotiations. He is expected to meet chief Iranian nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani in Madrid late next week.

The IAEA report, like predecessors, said the agency had seen no evidence that Iran was trying to "weaponize" nuclear material or of undeclared nuclear facilities operating in the country.

But ElBaradei voiced concern Tehran was moving towards confrontation with the international community by accelerating its nuclear program, and said his top priority was to prevent Iran achieving industrial-scale production of enriched uranium.

Nine U.S. warships sailed into the Gulf on Wednesday for maneuvers to display impatience with Tehran, which Washington also accuses of backing insurgents in Iraq. Iran denies the charge.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 25 May 07 - 09:42 AM

North Korea tests short-range missiles

By JAE-SOON CHANG, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 12 minutes ago



SEOUL, South Korea -       North Korea fired several short-range guided missiles Friday into the sea that separates it from Japan in an apparent test launch, South Korean officials and media reports said.

Analysts and media reports said the North's test was in response to       South Korea's launch of its first destroyer equipped with high-tech Aegis radar technology on Friday. South Korea is now one of only five countries armed with the technology, which will make it easier to track and shoot down North Korean aircraft and missiles.

"This shows North Korea, whose navy is rather small, is extremely alarmed," said Toshimitsu Shigemura, an expert on North Korean issues at Japan's Waseda University.

South Korea's Joint Chiefs of Staff confirmed Friday's missile launches.

"The short-range missile launches are believed to be part of a routine exercise that North Korea has conducted annually on the east and the west coasts in the past," the statement said.

The missiles were fired from the communist country's east coast into the sea between Japan and the Korean peninsula, a Joint Chiefs official said on condition of anonymity, citing official protocol.

Japan's public broadcaster and other media, citing Japanese and U.S. sources, reported the missiles were surface-to-ship. Japan's Defense Ministry and Foreign Ministry could not immediately confirm the reports.

South Korea's Yonhap news agency cited an unidentified Unification Ministry official as saying the tests would not strain ties because they were apparently part of regular exercises. North and South Korea are planning Cabinet level talks on reconciliation efforts next week in Seoul.

In Japan, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe called the tests "extremely regrettable" but said, "We do not consider (the missile firing) as a serious threat to Japan's national security."

Public broadcaster NHK said the missiles were shorter-range, and were not North Korea's existing Rodong or Taepodong I ballistic missiles.

Kyodo News agency said the missiles were launched from Hamgyong Namdo on the east coast of the Korean Peninsula and are considered modified silkworm or miniaturized Scuds, with a range of 60-125 miles.

Mobile missile carriers, communication equipment and personnel were seen in the area before the launch, but they left after the missiles were fired, Kyodo said.

Last month, North Korea displayed a newly developed ballistic missile capable of reaching the U.S. territory of Guam during a military parade, the South Korean newspaper Chosun Ilbo reported, citing an unidentified South Korean government official familiar with an analysis of U.S. satellite images.

North Korea's missile program has been a constant concern to the region, along with its pursuit of nuclear weapons.

The hard-line regime test-fired a series of missiles in July last year, including its latest long-range model, known abroad as the Taepodong-2, which experts believe could reach parts of the United States.

The North rattled the world again in October by conducting its first-ever test of a nuclear device. However, experts believe it does not have a bomb design advanced enough to be placed on a missile.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Dickey
Date: 25 May 07 - 10:01 AM

Dianavan:

My post of 18 May 07 - 09:22 AM was to show that Ashura is not banned in Iran as claimed by Rex.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Lepus Rex
Date: 25 May 07 - 06:58 PM

Do people not steal cars where you live? Do they not shoot heroin? Do they not drive drunk? What? They do? Huh. And, yet... all of these things are illegal, right? And they do them... Uh, what the fuck?! How are people managing to do these things... despite a BAN?! >:O

Idiot.

And, yes, you did imply that people whipping themselves was a human rights abuse by the government of Iran. Yanno, when you wrote to me: "Are you defending human rights abuses it Iran?" Followed by an excerpt of the Ashura article. What else could you have been referring to when you asked if I supported "human rights abuses it Iran?"

Again, idiot. Back down. You're not going to win.

---Lepus Rex

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Dickey
Date: 26 May 07 - 12:31 AM

Rex:

I was wrong about the blood letting part of Ashura. It is banned in Iran. The photo I posted was taken in Kerbala. I wrongly attributed it to Iran because it was on a web site about human rights abuses in Iran and I apologise.

I just learned about cross amputation in Iran. Know what that is? They cut off a right hand and a left foot. Nice eh?

25 February, 2006
Amnesty condemns Iran's executions

Amnesty International has expressed its outrage over an "alarming rate" of executions in Iran, particularly the use of the death penalty against children.

The human rights organisation has recorded 28 executions so far in 2006, following at least 94 in 2005 - although it states that "the true figure is likely to be much higher." The use of the death penalty is increasingly being used against political prisoners.

"According to the Minister of Justice, 45 people have been arrested in connection with the October explosions. On 14 February 2006, the Minister of Justice told the state news agency IRNA that seven of them had been convicted on charges including "enmity with God and corruption on earth (moharebeh and ifsad fil-arz, for which the penalty is execution, cross amputation, crucifixion or banishment), and murder" and that their sentences would be announced shortly. On 20 February 2006, the Prosecutor General reportedly said that "some of those convicted in this case have been sentenced to death, including the two main culprits, whose presence in the recent Ahvaz incidents was proved and their execution verdict is definite". On 21 February, in a statement to IRNA commenting on this report, the Minister of Justice stated that only two had been sentenced to death and these sentences were under review by the Supreme Court. He noted that "the seven convicts have not all committed crimes that call for the death penalty.""

http://www.ahwaz.org.uk/labels/death%20penalty.html

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Dickey
Date: 28 May 07 - 08:10 AM

"...Amputation is the elegant word to describe an unjust, cruel practice and without call which does not leave any possibility of rehabilitation to the delinquents.

A cut down man carries the mark of his delinquency and will not be able to find employment any more. Handicapped with life and without pension for his "justified" handicap, the man will not be able "to be free" and "to turn over to work to nourish his family" as mollahs explainexplain it.

The operations are done without anaesthesia and with a kind of "small guillotine" which was developed in Great Britain.

A first flight is punished by the amputation of the four fingers of the right hand or by the amputation of the very whole right hand. A repetition is punished by the "cross amputation": section of the right hand and the left leg under the knee.

This form of amputation is a death sentence in a country like the republic of mollahs where 55% of the young, valid and graduate men are without employment..."

More Here

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 28 May 07 - 11:56 PM

The invasion of Iraq is not about human rights. If the U.S. cared about human rights, they would invade China.

"During the past two years, there has been a dramatic increase in the use of the death penalty in China. This growth in the number of death sentences and executions is partly due to anti-crime campaigns launched by the government. Defendants can be put to death for criminal offenses, including nonviolent property crimes such as theft, embezzlement and forgery. In 1993, 77% of all executions worldwide were carried out in China. On a single day, 9 January 1993, 356 death sentences were handed down by Chinese courts; 62 executions took place that day. During that year alone, 2,564 people were sentenced to death. At least 1,419 of them are known to have been executed."

http://www.christusrex.org/www1/sdc/hr_facts.html#DeathPenalty

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 29 May 07 - 03:40 AM

"The invasion of Iraq is not about human rights."

Read the terms and conditions stipulated in the UNSC Resolutions that Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi Government of the day agreed to at Safwan in 1991.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce.
Date: 29 May 07 - 04:32 AM

dianavan,

Be carefull: on a per capita basis, YOU just justified that the US SHOULD attack Iran, for THEIR use of capital punishment...

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Dickey
Date: 29 May 07 - 09:34 AM

"If the U.S. cared about human rights, they would invade China."

If Canada cared about human rights, they would invade China.

This thread is about Iran and Korea. Human rights suck in Iran and are almost non existant in North Korea.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 29 May 07 - 11:41 AM

Dickey - According to your posts, I thought you were justifying the invasion of Iran based on human rights abuses.

My post of 28 May 07 - 11:56 PM should have referred to Iran.

I do not believe that the invasion of Iraq or the possible invasion of Iran or Korea has anything to do with human rights. If the U.S. was worried about human rights, they wouldn't be engaged in torture or unlawful confinement.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 May 07 - 12:44 PM

If Canada was worried about human rights, they wouldn't be engaged in illegal exports of asbestos to south-east asia.

So, obviously by your logic Canada should not be claiming human rights as a reason for anything.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Dickey
Date: 30 May 07 - 01:22 AM

If what you say is true then Canada should invade the US and free all those detainees, after they free their own.

HUNGERSTRIKES AT CANADA'S "GUANTANAMO NORTH" UPDATE AND NEW CALL

Thanks to all of you who responded to this urgent appeal (below) about the hungerstrikes at Canada's "Guantanamo North" prison.

The Canadian government is continuing its closed door policy & misinformation campaign (see our six-point response to our public Safety Minister's lies at www.homesnotbombs.ca/daylies.htm). In the absence of response from the government, the men have expressed their intention to continue the hungerstrike. Today is day 76 of the hungerstrike for Mohammad Mahjoub, day 65 for Hassan Almrei and Mahmoud Jaballah. The prison is refusing to provide or permit daily medical monitoring - normally recommended after 10 days of hungerstrike - thus the situation could become critical at any moment.

We are therefore RENEWING OUR APPEAL to allies and friends internationally to PLEASE DO ALL YOU can to put pressure on Canada's appalling and racist treatment of Jaballah, Mahjoub and Almrei. This is not only about the lives and dignity of these men and their families; in Canada, the struggle of these migrants for dignity and justice has become a symbol of the struggle against Canada's support for a racist system of global apartheid in the name of "the war against terrorism" and "national security".

http://www.statewatch.org/news/2007/feb/04canada-hunger-strike.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 30 May 07 - 02:31 AM

Canada, like the U.S., has no right to invade another country on the basis of human rights violations.

Afghanistan and Iraq were not invaded because of human rights violations. Afghanistan was invaded in an attempt to find bin Laden and destroy al qaeda. Iraq was invaded to oust Saddam. Somehow they have morphed into a misguided war of moral and religious values. Neither Canada or the U.S. have any right to act with moral authority. At least Canada deals with it, judicially. How many are still being detained by the U.S. without access to legal assistance?

btw - "Charkaoui was released in 2005 and Harkat in 2006, but they remain subject to severe restrictions, including the continuous wearing of a GPS bracelet and house arrest. Jaballah and Mahjoub were released in 2007 after seven years incarceration, and likewise are still subject to house arrest. Almrei is the only one still imprisoned in Millhaven Penitentiary, a maximum security prison, in Kingston, Ontario. All five now face deportation to their countries of origin where, the government admits, they potentially face torture and death."

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/may2007/cana-m12.shtml

Dickey - If you're going to give a source, its best to cite something a little more current. Don't be so lazy. When you find an article that supports your position, do a little follow-up.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 May 07 - 02:24 PM

Iran rejects key demand in nuclear talks

POSTED: 3:04 a.m. EDT, May 30, 2007

Story Highlights• 'We will not accept any preconditions' for talks, Iran's Larijani says

• Larijani to meet Solana Thursday in Madrid
• West believes Iran is trying to build atomic bombs
• Tehran denies the charge, says its program is aimed at generating electricity

TEHRAN, Iran (Reuters) -- Iran will not suspend uranium enrichment, the key U.N. demand in a nuclear row with Tehran, Iran's chief nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani said the day before talks with the EU's Javier Solana.

"Suspension is not a solution to Iran's nuclear issue ... Iran cannot accept suspension," Larijani told reporters at a Tehran airport before his departure.

"We have no conditions, and we are ready for constructive talks, but we will not accept any preconditions. We are ready to remove concerns over Iran's atomic issue."

Larijani meets Solana, the EU foreign policy chief leading discussions on behalf of world powers, on Thursday in Madrid.

Previous meetings have failed to persuade Tehran to obey U.N. resolutions demanding that it halt enrichment, a process which the West believes Iran is seeking to master so that it can build atomic bombs. Tehran denies the charge.

The U.N. Security Council has imposed two sets of sanctions on Iran since December for its failure to heed U.N. demands. The United States, which has led efforts to isolate Iran, has threatened further steps.

Iran insists its program is aimed at generating electricity. Iran's first nuclear power plant is still being built.

Iran temporarily suspended enrichment under a previous deal with the European Union but that pact collapsed in 2005 and Tehran resumed the work.

Solana is empowered by the world's major powers -- the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany as well as the EU -- to explore the scope for formal negotiations on a package of economic, technological and political initiatives if Iran suspends enrichment.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 30 May 07 - 08:00 PM

This is news?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 May 07 - 08:01 PM

sorry if a current news report does not meet your expectations.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 01 Jun 07 - 09:09 PM

from the Washington Post:

Iran Hostage Crisis, Part 2

Tehran should immediately release the American citizens it has detained.
Friday, June 1, 2007; Page A14


PARANOID that a network of U.S. scholars and thinkers is fomenting a velvet revolution, Iran charged three U.S.-Iranian citizens with espionage this week. If convicted, they face execution.

The accused are Haleh Esfandiari, the 67-year-old director of the Middle East program at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars; Kian Tajbakhsh, 45, a respected social scientist at the New School in New York who has consulted for George Soros's Open Society Institute and the World Bank; and Radio Farda journalist Parnaz Azima, 59. The government and various state news agencies have accused these Iranian Americans and their organizations of endangering state security on the basis of their supposedly treacherous attempts to foster dialogue and exchange.

The charges are ludicrous. Ms. Esfandiari, who has invited scholars and statesmen from Iran to U.S. conferences and events, has been criticized by some in the Iranian American community as being too soft on the current regime. And not only has Mr. Tajbakhsh consulted directly for the Iranian government, but the supposedly "Zionist" and "soft overthrow"-obsessed organization he works for, the Open Society Institute, has run all its humanitarian and health outreach programs in Iran with the full cooperation of the Iranian government, sometimes even at the government's initiative. Iran's government approached the institute in 2003, for example, to provide relief after the Bam earthquake. The idea that any of these people were in Iran to concoct a U.S.-funded insurgent network is especially absurd, given that all three were there on private visits, with both Ms. Esfandiari and Ms. Azima visiting their ailing mothers.

The list of foreign hostages doesn't stop there. U.S.-Iranian businessman Ali Shakeri, who is on the board of the University of California at Irvine's Center for Citizen Peacebuilding, was arrested on May 8 on his way back to the United States (also after visiting his ill mother, who died during his stay). A fifth U.S.-Iranian citizen is also imprisoned, although his name has not been released. Ex-FBI agent Robert Levinson disappeared in Iran in March and may be imprisoned, though Iran has denied any knowledge of his whereabouts. And an Iranian French national, journalism student Mehrnoushe Solouki, has been forbidden to leave the country, according to Reporters Without Borders.

These individuals are pawns. Those in Iran who care about the world's respect should press for their release.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Dickey
Date: 01 Jun 07 - 11:26 PM

Paramilitary Secret Police Kidnap, Detain, Torture Bilderberg Investigators.

Interrogators threatened to "cut off arms" during 6 hour marathon of hell.

Paul Joseph Watson/Prison Planet.com | June 29 2006

Three Canadian citizens who visited the Brookestreet Hotel in Ottawa to observe members of the Bilderberg Group earlier this month were kidnapped, detained without charge and suffered the ordeal of a marathon interrogation session and psychological torture - including threats to "cut off the arms" of one of the victims.
   The nightmare began on June 9th, the second day of the Bilderberg conference. After being warned to leave the previous day, Joe Burd's party of three left the site of the Brookestreet Hotel at 2pm where he and Crystal Slack headed for a local bar, while Burd's friend electrician Don McCormick rested in their rented vehicle which was parked on a downtown street.
   What happened next should chill the core of anyone who thinks that westerners still live in a free society.
   "A military-grade task force involving local police, RCMP and members of the "Integrated National Security Enforcement Team" descended around the rental vehicle with weapons pointed at Mr. McCormick. He was abruptly and forcibly taken into custody from his vehicle, thrown to the ground and kicked in head."
   After approaching the vehicle, Burd and his friend Crystal Slack were also grabbed and kidnapped, taken to a RCMP holding facility, detained without charges, harassed and interrogated for hours about their connections to the "insurgent" and "threat to national security" Alex Jones, who himself had been detained and interrogated for 15 hours at the hands of Canadian immigration the previous day.
   McCormick was taken to a secret high security facility where he was brutally interrogated without charge and mentally tortured for six hours. He was accused of wanting to blow up the Brookestreet Hotel, as the interrogators threatened to "cut off his arms" warning him that they also "had his friends" in custody. This is the very definition of psychological torture, the threat of physical harm and dismemberment.
   One of the dictionary definitions of torture is, "dismemberment, taking apart - the removal of limbs; being cut to pieces." The threat of extreme physical pain is a method used on suspected terrorists and was also inflicted upon innocent prisoners at Abu Ghraib.McCormick's anguish at the hands of the Canadian Gestapo didn't end there.
   Interrogators told McCormick that he "would never be alone again" and to "watch his back" - as he began to fear he would become the latest victim of the worldwide rendition policy, and be taken to an Eastern European gulag for further torture.
   McCormick was so stricken by the horror of his nightmare that many of the details of what happened remained bottled up, partly from threatened fear of reprisals if he told anyone what had occurred.
   Finally being released and returning home the next day, McCormick became delirious and had to be rushed to hospital after he collapsed. He was diagnosed with severe dehydration and mental fatigue due to his experiences in Ottawa. McCormick had to be sedated to help him sleep as he babbled about having his arms cut off and interrogators threatening to harm his friends.
   From the experiences of Alex Jones during his 15 hour ordeal with Canadian immigration officials, it was learned that the order to impede Jones' party came directly from the Bilderberg Group itself. With this knowledge in hand, it is by no means a stretch to assume that the hellish treatment of Burd, McCormick and Slack was also a mandate of the Bilderberg elitists.
   These are the pleasures of the global elite and their security thug enforcers - repression of free speech, intimidation, kidnapping, grabbing people off the streets and treating them as terrorists, and psychological torture - all carried out under the wilful arrogance that they are protecting the nation from harm.
   The real terrorists are the perverted bullies that kidnapped three peaceful citizens and subjected them to a marathon of hell - and they represent a threat to the freedom and way of life of all Canadians.

http://www.prisonplanet.tv/articles/december2004/021204martiallaw.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Jun 07 - 11:27 AM

G-8 approves aid for Africa, warns Iran

By CHRISTINE OLLIVIER, Associated Press Writer
17 minutes ago



HEILIGENDAMM, Germany - Leaders of the Group of Eight agreed Friday on a $60 billion package to fight       AIDS, TB and malaria in Africa and warned       Iran over its disputed nuclear program, on the final day of the summit of the world's richer nations.

The G-8 pledged to "adopt further measures" if Iran refuses to halt its uranium enrichment program — a sign of support for       U.N. Security Council moves to discuss a third set of sanctions. Uranium enrichment is a process that can produce fuel for civilian energy — or fissile material for a bomb.

Meanwhile, G-8 diplomats ran in to obstacles in discussions on the future of the Serbian province of       Kosovo.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel, the meeting's host, said there were still "different opinions" on a proposal to put off a U.N. Security Council vote on Kosovo's independence for six months, and that diplomats would meet again next week.

Wary of delays, Kosovo Prime Minister Agim Ceku said from his provincial capital, "We cannot wait forever. Give us clarity, give us freedom and let us go."

The United States and the       European Union back a U.N. resolution to give the predominantly ethnic Albanian province supervised independence. But Russia is backing ally Serbia in its resistance to ceding the province seen as its historic heartland.

G-8 leaders held their final sessions at the Baltic Sea resort of Heiligendamm without an ailing       President Bush, who stayed in his room to recuperate after meeting privately with French President Nicolas Sarkozy.

Bush soon was feeling better and rejoined the summit after missing a session with African leaders and another with heads of state from developing nations China, India, Brazil, Mexico and South Africa.

In his absence, the other seven leaders met with the presidents of Egypt, Algeria, Senegal, Ghana, and Nigeria to back the aid plan for Africa. About half of the $60 billion was pledged earlier by the U.S., and other nations will contribute the rest, Germany's development minister said.

"It was a very candid and open discussion," Merkel said. "We said that on behalf of the countries of the G-8, that we are aware of our obligations and we would like to fulfill the promises that we entered into and we are going to do that."

But the anti-poverty group Oxfam noted that only a fraction of the promised US$60 billion represented new aid since the figure was spread over an unspecified number of years and includes money already pledged.

The new money is important, the group said in a statement, but "should be seen for what it is: a small step when we need giant leaps."

The leaders also discussed a proposal, put forth by Sarkozy, on the independence-seeking Serbian province of Kosovo that would provide six-months for further talks between Belgrade and the Kosovo Albanians.

If they reach no agreement, the U.N. plan would then take effect, giving the predominantly ethnic Albanian province supervised independence.

Kosovo has been under U.N. supervision since a       NATO-led air war in 1999 to halt a Serbian crackdown on ethnic Albanian separatists.

"At the moment, we have not achieved the necessary progress," Sarkozy said Friday. "The key question that I posed was recognizing the need for Kosovo to achieve independence within a certain timeframe."

In Pristina, Kosovo's prime minister urged the West not to betray Kosovo.

"We have committed to the U.N. path and we have been very patient," Agim Ceku told The Associated Press on Friday. "I urge you; do not betray this trust."

On Thursday, G-8 leaders reached an agreement on climate change, adopting a statement that says they should "seriously consider" proposals to cut the emissions of greenhouse gases by 50 percent by 2050. The nonbinding language is a compromise between the European Union, which wants mandatory cuts, and the United States, which opposes them.

The G-8 is Germany, the United States, Russia, Britain, Italy, France, Canada and Japan.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Jun 07 - 05:07 PM

NKorea lashes out amid nuclear standoff

By JAE-SOON CHANG, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 52 minutes ago



SEOUL, South Korea -       North Korea warned Friday it might increase its "self-defense deterrent," a term the communist nation usually uses to describe its nuclear program, even as its key condition for nuclear disarmament was being met.

North Korea's warning, in a statement criticizing U.S. missile defense plans, raised concerns the recalcitrant regime might be trying to find another reason to postpone disarming. As the statement was released, millions of dollars in frozen funds were headed to North Korean accounts, apparently resolving a banking dispute the country had used as a reason to delay.

"The U.S. is claiming that it is building a global missile defense system to protect against missile attacks from our nation and       Iran. This is a childish pretext," the North's Foreign Ministry said in a statement carried by the official Korean Central News Agency. "We cannot but further strengthen our self-defense deterrent if the arms race intensifies because of the U.S. maneuvers."

North Korea has refused to act on its February pledge to shut down its nuclear reactor until it gets access to $25 million once frozen in a U.S.-blacklisted Macau bank.

Claiming the money freeze was a sign of Washington's hostility, North Korea boycotted international nuclear talks for more than a year, during which it conducted its first-ever atomic bomb test in October.

On Thursday, Macau's chief finance official said the money had been transferred from the bank, but it remained unclear if the entire amount has moved or whether it reached its destination. Officials knowledgeable about the transfer have said more than $23 million was involved but that the transaction was not complete.

A South Korean government official said Friday the money has "reached Moscow at its central bank" and was awaiting deposit in North Korean accounts in Russia. He spoke on condition of anonymity, citing the issue's sensitivity.

If the money goes into North Korea's accounts, it means the financial dispute is fully resolved, the official said. But he did not say when the deposit could take place.

In Washington, the State Department said Friday it was looking into North Korea's latest warning.

"At this point, not having seen the statement, I wouldn't attribute any particular significance to it. But we'll take a look at it," said Sean McCormack, a department spokesman.

The North Korean funds had been frozen at Macau's Banco Delta Asia since 2005, when the U.S. blacklisted the bank for allegedly helping North Korea's government pass fake $100 bills and launder money from weapons sales.

In an attempt to win North Korea's promise to start dismantling its nuclear program, the U.S. agreed earlier this year to give its blessing for the money to be freed.

The U.S., Japan, China, Russia and the two Koreas took part in the arms negotiations that prompted a pledge from the North in February to stop making nuclear weapons in exchange for aid and political concessions.

"If and when transfer does take place, we expect the North Koreans to live up to the provisions of the Feb. 13 agreement," White House spokesman Tony Snow said in Washington.

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said said the international community would have to consider more serious actions if North Korea continued to stall.

       President Bush "and I have expressed that our patience is not limitless, and I hope North Korea takes this seriously," Abe said.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Nickhere
Date: 19 Jun 07 - 08:19 PM

"Paramilitary Secret Police Kidnap, Detain, Torture Bilderberg Investigators.

Interrogators threatened to "cut off arms" during 6 hour marathon of hell"

Come on now, Canadians, stop trying to keep up with the Jonses! ;-))

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Jun 07 - 04:08 PM

Now, what was being said about how Iran didn't want to make a bomb???


Nuclear scientists from Pakistan admit helping Iran with bomb-making
By Massoud Ansari in Karachi
Last Updated: 12:22am GMT 25/01/2004



Scientists and officials working on Pakistan's nuclear weapons programme have admitted for the first time that they gave Iran crucial technical information on building an atomic bomb.

Interrogators who have questioned the eight people detained last weekend over allegations that nuclear secrets were sold abroad have confirmed that at least three confessed to helping pass secret nuclear know-how to their opposite numbers in Iran.

The two scientists and one official work for Khan Research Laboratory (KRL), the headquarters of the country's nuclear weapons programme, and include close associates of Dr Abdul Qadeer Khan, a national hero in Pakistan as the "Father of the Bomb". One is said to be a senior manager at KRL and an expert in centrifuge technology.

advertisementAll three deny supplying equipment directly to Iran, a senior official told the Telegraph. He said, however, that one scientist admitted: "We confided in them about the items needed to construct a nuclear bomb, as well as the makes of equipment, the names of companies, the countries from which they could be procured and how they could be procured."

Scientists are also said to have revealed the names of retired senior army officials and nuclear experts who played key roles in deals which helped Iran to launch its nuclear weapons programme. Pakistan's president, Pervez Musharraf, ordered an investigation of his country's nuclear scientists late last year, after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) warned of possible nuclear links between Pakistan and Iran, Libya and North Korea.

Iran pledged last year to halt uranium enrichment activity, but Western diplomats believe that the country is still acquiring advanced centrifuge equipment needed to make a nuclear weapon. Inspections carried out by IAEA inspectors or Iranian nuclear facilities revealed links with Pakistan, including blueprints for a type of centrifuge similar to those used by Pakistan.

The latest information from Pakistan's scientists poses a dilemma for President Musharraf, who promised last week to prosecute anyone who sold nuclear secrets.

He said on Friday that scientists appeared to have sold nuclear designs to other nations "for personal financial gain", but insisted that no state or government officials were involved. He must decide whether to widen the investigation to include senior military figures who have been identified by scientists.

"This is highly sensitive," said an official. "Some of those identified by the scientists are 'big names', and it would not be easy for the government to lay its hands on them."

Last weekend's arrests bring the number of KRL scientists and officials arrested by Pakistani authorities over the past two months to more than 20, including key members of the team responsible for Pakistan's 1998 nuclear test. Most have since been released, but at least nine are still under interrogation. Dr Khan has also been questioned, although he was not detained and he denied any involvement in passing information abroad.

However, after these latest disclosures, officials said, that Pakistani authorities are investigating the wealth accumulated by nuclear scientists and KRL officials, many of whom enjoy luxurious homes in opulent neighbourhoods beyond the reach of someone living on a government salary.

One senior government official said: "Some of the top scientists and people associated with the country's nuclear programme appear to be living beyond their means. We do not know whether they have accumulated this wealth by illegally siphoning off funds from the KRL budget, or by obtaining money in exchange for transferring nuclear expertise."

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 22 Jun 07 - 10:36 AM

Iran said to enrich 100 kg uranium before new talks

By Fredrik Dahl
1 hour, 49 minutes ago



TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran has stored 100 kg of enriched uranium material, its interior minister was quoted on Friday as saying, in comments that may worry Western powers who suspect the Islamic Republic of seeking to build nuclear bombs.

But a senior Iranian nuclear official cast doubt on the information. "The figures are not correct," the official, who declined to be named, told Reuters.

Interior Minister Mostafa Pourmohammadi made his comment ahead of sensitive talks on Iran's nuclear program between Iran's top negotiator and the U.N. atomic watchdog director and the European Union's foreign policy chief.

Iran's Ali Larijani will meet International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohammed ElBaradei on Friday and the EU's Javier Solana on Saturday in what may be a last chance to end the impasse before world powers begin drafting broader sanctions against Iran.

Iran has refused U.N. demands to halt enrichment, a process that yields fuel for nuclear power plants but can also provide material for weapons if the uranium is refined to a much higher degree. Tehran says its goal is purely peaceful electricity.

The IAEA is also concerned about Iranian cutbacks in the access given to agency inspectors.

ISNA news agency quoted Pourmohammadi as saying: "More than 100 kg of enriched uranium materials have been delivered to storages."

Pourmohammadi, speaking in southwestern Iran late on Thursday, also said "more than 150 tonnes of initial materials of uranium gas are ready and have been stored." Uranium gas is fed into centrifuges for refinement into fuel.

Diplomats and nuclear analysts say roughly 500 kg of low-enriched uranium would be needed as material for one bomb but it would have to be re-introduced into centrifuge machines reconfigured to refine uranium to weapons-grade.

They say such a step would be difficult to hide from U.N. inspectors assigned to the Natanz enrichment plant, where Iran has been expanding a hitherto research-level centrifuge operation in a bid for "industrial-scale" fuel production.

Iran has repeatedly said it has no intention of trying to produce highly-enriched uranium suitable for weapons in violation of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

POINT OF NO RETURN

The last Larijani-Solana meeting in Madrid in May brought no breakthrough on the core enrichment dispute and the latest exploratory talks were unlikely to make much headway.

Iran has said it wants to clear up IAEA questions about the nature of its program but not unless the U.N. Security Council returns authority over its file to the Vienna-based agency, ending sanctions pressure -- a nonstarter for Western powers.

Instead of freezing all enrichment-related activity, as the Security Council has demanded, Iran has accelerated the program and says it has passed the point of no return.

"When the world saw that the (Iranian) nation is pursuing this goal with unity, the world surrendered, " Pourmohammadi said. "We have passed the dangerous moment."

The Security Council has already imposed two rounds of limited sanctions on Iran over its refusal to shelve enrichment.

The United States said on Tuesday it and five other world powers -- Britain, Russia, France, Germany and China -- had begun discussing a third round of penalties against Iran.

Iran, OPEC's second-largest crude exporter, says it is enriching uranium only as an alternative energy source so that it can export more of its valuable oil and gas.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Jun 07 - 04:28 PM

Iranians still planning attacks in Iraq: U.S.

By Alister Bull
1 hour, 25 minutes ago



BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iranian operatives are training fighters in Iraq and helping to plan attacks there despite diplomatic pressure on Tehran to halt such interference, U.S. officials said on Wednesday.

The latest accusation leveled against Iran by the U.S. military followed rare diplomatic talks in Baghdad last month between the two old adversaries to discuss Washington's concerns in Iraq.

"There absolutely is evidence of Iranian operatives holding weapons, training fighters, providing resources, helping plan operations, resourcing secret cells that is destabilizing Iraq," said military spokesman Brigadier-General Kevin Bergner.

"We would like very much to see some action on their part to reduce the level of effort and to help contribute to Iraq's security. We have not seen it yet," he told a news conference, he said, referring to the Iranian government.

In fresh violence across Iraq, car bombs and other violence killed nearly 50 people, police said.

The United States, already seeking wider sanctions against Tehran over the Islamic republic's nuclear program, blames Iranians for supplying a type of roadside bomb which cuts through armor and has killed many U.S. soldiers.

Tehran said last week it would study a request from Iraq for a new U.S.-Iran meeting, but warned a decision may take time.

Daniel Speckhard, the number two U.S. diplomat in Iraq, said there was still no word back from Iran.

Tensions between the two long-time foes are especially high after U.S. troops seized five Iranians in January in northern Iraq, accusing them of helping insurgents.

Iran, which says the five are diplomats, is holding three U.S.-Iranian citizens on security-related charges.

Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said his country backed the Iraqi government and accused the United States of seeking to undermine Tehran's ties with Baghdad, the Iranian student news agency ISNA reported on Wednesday.

Diplomatic sparring between the two nations is further complicated by Western demands for Iran to open up its nuclear program to international scrutiny. Tehran says it is peaceful, but the West fears that it will produce nuclear bombs.

TURKISH AL QAEDA MILITANTS KILLED

Among the attacks in Iraq on Wednesday, police said a car bomb killed seven people and wounded 14 in the Shi'ite district of Kadhimiya in Baghdad.

In Samarra, 100 km (62 miles) north of Baghdad, police said seven people including five police commandos were killed by a roadside bomb.

Police also found the bodies of 21 people in Baghdad on Wednesday. Most had been shot.

Thousands of U.S. and Iraqi troops are targeting Sunni Islamist and al Qaeda militants blamed for most of the car bombs in the city in operations around Baghdad's beltways.

Bergner said U.S. commanders were pleased with their progress, but warned that "change will not come overnight."

U.S. soldiers killed two senior Turkish al Qaeda operatives in northern Iraq, the military also said.

It said Mehmet Yilmaz and Mehmet Resit Isik were killed on June 23 in a firefight with U.S. forces near the town of Hawija, which lies to the south of the city of Kirkuk.

Military officials say foreign militants, mainly from Arab countries, are the brains behind al Qaeda in Iraq.

The statement said Yilmaz, also known as Khalid al-Turki, was a senior leader in al-Qaeda who operated a cell that brought foreign fighters into Iraq. Isik was a close associate of Yilmaz and other senior al Qaeda leaders, the statement said.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 28 Jun 07 - 02:16 PM

U.N. nuke inspectors go to N. Korea reactor

POSTED: 1:37 a.m. EDT, June 28, 2007

Story Highlights• Trip to Yongbyon is first by IAEA monitors since being expelled in late 2002
• Visit coincides with N. Korea's testing of three short-range missiles
• Japanese prime minister calls for "harsh" world response to missile tests
• U.S. "is deeply troubled that North Korea has decided to launch these missiles"

PYONGYANG, North Korea (AP) -- U.N. inspectors headed to North Korea's key nuclear reactor Thursday to discuss a long-delayed shutdown of the plutonium-producing facility, as the country came under increasing criticism for launching missile tests this week.

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe slammed North Korea's communist government over the short-range missile launches, calling them a provocation that could destabilize the region and a defiance of the United Nations.

"We need to seek a harsh response from the international community," Abe said in Tokyo.

North Korea boosted the urgency in the international stand-off over its nuclear program in October when it mounted its first atomic test explosion. The U.N. Security Council condemned the move and passed a resolution saying North Korea must, among other things, abide by a missile-test moratorium.

"I do not think this will directly affect our security," Abe said of this week's missile testing. "But in any case it is a violation of the U.N. Security Council resolution."

U.S. officials made similar comments in Washington.

"We expect North Korea to refrain from conducting further provocative ballistic missile launches, activity that is destabilizing to the security of northeast Asia," said Gordon Johndroe, a spokesman for the U.S. National Security Council.

Meanwhile, a team from the International Atomic Energy Agency made its way from the North Korean capital to the Yongbyon reactor, about 100 kilometers (60 miles) to the northeast.

The 5-megawatt reactor, believed capable of churning out enough plutonium for one atomic bomb per year, is at the center of the international efforts to halt North Korea's nuclear program.

The team was invited by North Korea to discuss details of shutting down the reactor, as it pledged under an international accord in February. It is the first IAEA trip to the facility since its monitors were expelled from the country in late 2002. (Watch one analyst describe the team's arrival in N. Korea as only an 'initial step' )

"We go to see the facilities and continue our discussions in more details," Olli Heinonen, deputy director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said in footage shot by APTN at his Pyongyang hotel before he departed for the Yongbyon complex.

Heinonen, whose team arrived in Pyongyang on Tuesday, declined to provide details of his discussions with North Korean officials so far and emphasized that the visit to Yongbyon, expected to last into Friday, was not a formal inspection.

"We are here to talk about the verification and monitoring arrangement," Heinonen said.

Asked if the North might begin to shut down the reactor during his visit there, Heinonen told reporters that he and his team will see "what we have on the table" Friday evening.

A formal inspection of the facility would require a formal agreement outlining how it would be conducted, subject to approval by the Vienna-based IAEA board of governors, Heinonen said Wednesday.

The North agreed to close the Yongbyon reactor in February in exchange for economic aid and political concessions, under an accord reached in six-party talks also including the U.S., China, Japan, Russia and South Korea.

But the communist nation ignored an April deadline to do so because of a banking dispute with the United States.

That dispute was settled this week after months of delay, and North Korea announced Monday that it would move forward with the disarmament deal.

South Korean news agency Yonhap reported that North Korea tested a short-range missile on Wednesday.

Two officials at the U.S. Defense Department confirmed the report, but said there were three launches and that they took place Tuesday. The discrepancies could not immediately be reconciled, and South Korea's Defense Ministry declined to comment.

The missiles were fired within the North's territorial waters, the U.S. officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.

Such missile tests have the potential for spiking tensions in the standoff over North Korea's nuclear program. However, the country's military is not believed to have the ability to mount a nuclear weapon on a missile.

It was the third time in a month that the North test-fired a short-range missile, following launches May 25 and June 7.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 Jun 07 - 09:00 AM

U.N. monitors satisfied with visit

POSTED: 3:58 a.m. EDT, June 29, 2007

Story Highlights• Facilities remain operational, Heinonen says
• Heinonen has not indicated a timeline for the reactor's closure
• IAEA's trip was to discuss shutdown and verification procedures with North Korea

PYONGYANG, North Korea (AP) -- U.N. monitors expressed strong satisfaction Friday with a rare visit to North Korea's main nuclear reactor, praising the communist regime for its cooperation in an indication Pyongyang is serious about meeting its promise to close the facility.

The team from the International Atomic Energy Agency returned Friday to the North Korean capital from a two-day trip to the Yongbyon nuclear complex, broadcaster APTN reported. It was the first IAEA visit to the facility since U.N. monitors were expelled from the country in 2002.

Pyongyang pledged to close Yongbyon in exchange for economic aid and political concessions in an agreement with the U.S., China, Japan, Russia and South Korea. The purpose of the IAEA trip is to discuss shutdown and verification procedures with North Korea.

"We visited all the places which we are planning to visit and cooperation was excellent," IAEA Deputy Director Olli Heinonen said in footage shot by APTN.

Heinonen, who added that the facilities remain operational, said more discussions were planned Friday with North Korean officials.

The 5-megawatt reactor, believed capable of churning out enough plutonium for one atomic bomb a year, is at the center of international efforts to halt North Korea's nuclear program. North Korea mounted its first atomic test explosion last October.

Heinonen, whose team arrived in North Korea on Tuesday from Beijing, did not indicate a timeline for its closure.

"It's not yet the point of shutdown so that is still to come," he said. Asked by a reporter, however, how many facilities at the complex would likely be closed, he answered, "I think five."

Other facilities his team saw at Yongbyon included an unfinished 50-megawatt reactor, the fuel fabrication plant and reprocessing plant, Heinonen said.

Heinonen said Thursday that the two-day trip to Yongbyon could give a better indication of when North Korea would close the reactor.

"We are here to negotiate the arrangements, so let's see now when we get to Friday evening what we have on the table," Heinonen said in footage broadcast by APTN in Pyongyang before he departed for the reactor.

In Washington, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Thursday she hoped for a swift shutdown.

"We hope for now rapid progress given the beginning, we believe, of the North Korean efforts to meet their initial action obligations," Rice said, before meeting South Korean Foreign Minister Song Min-soon.

Song told reporters after the meeting that six-party nuclear talks with North Korea can resume even before the North's reactor closure is completed, as long as Pyongyang starts the shutdown, Yonhap news agency reported.

The Foreign Ministry in Seoul could not immediately confirm the comments.

Though North Korea pledged to close Yongbyon, it ignored an April deadline to do so because of a dispute with Washington over North Korean funds frozen in a Macau bank because U.S. allegations of money laundering and other wrongdoing.

That was finally settled this week after months of delays, and North Korea said Monday it would move forward with the disarmament deal.

The February agreement's initial phase calls for North Korea to shut the Yongbyon reactor and receive 50,000 tons heavy fuel oil assistance.

The six parties to the agreement are China, Japan, the two Koreas, Russia and the United States.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Jul 07 - 04:05 PM

U.S. implicates Iran in January attack

By LEE KEATH, Associated Press Writer
37 minutes ago



BAGHDAD - The U.S. military accused Iran on Monday of a direct role in a sophisticated militant attack that killed five American troops in Iraq, portraying Tehran as waging a proxy war through Shiite extremists.

The claims over the January attack marked a sharp escalation in U.S. accusations that Iran has been arming and financing Iraqi militants, and for the first time linked the Iranian effort to its ally, Lebanon's Shiite Hezbollah militia. The allegations could endanger Iraqi efforts to hold a new round of talks between the U.S. and Iran.

U.S. military spokesman Brig. Gen. Kevin J. Bergner said the Quds Force, part of Iran's elite Republican Guards, was seeking to build an Iraqi version of Hezbollah to fight U.S. and Iraqi forces — and had brought in Hezbollah operatives to help train and organize militants.

"Our intelligence reveals that the senior leadership in Iran is aware of this activity," Bergner told a Baghdad news conference. He said it would be "hard to imagine" that Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei did not know about the activity.

Iran has denied past claims that it was backing Iraqi militants — including accusations that it was providing them with a particularly deadly type of roadside bomb, the explosively formed penetrator. Its ally Hezbollah has denied having any role in Iraq, saying it operates only in Lebanon.

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini rejected the allegations Monday, saying "American leaders have gotten into the habit of issuing ridiculous and false statements without providing evidence, with political and psychological aims."

But Bergner said an extensive Quds Force program was revealed through interrogations of an alleged Lebanese Hezbollah operative, Ali Mussa Dakdouk, and an Iraqi militant, Qais al-Khazaali, along with documents seized with them. Both men were captured in March in the southern city of Basra.

The Quds Force is providing up to $3 million a month to Iraqi militants and bringing them to three training camps outside Tehran to learn how to carry out bombings, raids and kidnappings, Bergner said. Most of those who trained in Iran were extremists who broke away from Iraqi Shiite militias, including the Mahdi Army loyal to anti-U.S. cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, he said.

Dakdouk, a 24-year veteran of Hezbollah, was sent to Iraq "as a surrogate for the Iranian Quds Force" to finance and arm militant cells known as "special groups," the general said.

The goal was to organize militants "in ways that mirrored how Hezbollah was organized in Lebanon." Hezbollah is one of the region's most disciplined and powerful militant groups, able to fight Israel's military to a near standstill in a war last summer.

Dakdouk told his interrogators that the militants behind the Jan. 20 surprise attack in the southern city of Karbala "could not have conducted this complex operation without the support and direction of the Quds Force," Bergner said.

The Karbala attack was one of the most sophisticated against U.S. forces in the 4-year-old Iraqi war.

Carrying false IDs, up to a dozen fighters disguised themselves as an American security team. They got past checkpoints to reach a provincial government building, where they opened fire with machine guns and explosives. One U.S. soldier was killed in the initial attack, and four others were abducted and found shot to death soon after.

Al-Khazaali was in charge of special groups around Iraq and confessed to ordering the Karbala attack, Bergner said. A 22-page document seized with him detailed the operation, showing that the Quds Force had developed detailed information on U.S. soldiers' "shift changes and defenses" at the government building, "and this information was shared with the attackers," Bergner said.

A total of 18 "higher-level operatives" from the Iranian-backed special groups have been arrested and three others killed since February, Bergner said.

The Shiite-led Iraqi government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is backed by the U.S. but is also closely tied to Iran, and it has hoped that talks between the two rivals could ease the tensions between them and reduce Iraq's violence.

An initial Baghdad session in February between ambassadors from the two countries, however, made little progress, overshadowed by accusations by each side that the other was fueling Iraq's turmoil. Iraq is trying to organize a second meeting, but no date has been set.

Sami al-Askari, al-Maliki adviser, said, "We don't rule out that there is Iranian interference by financing armed groups, whether Shiite or Sunni, or even that there might be some Hezbollah elements training the groups."

But he insisted the U.S. accusations "will not affect the Iranian-American meeting."

In Washington, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack echoed Bergner's charges, saying they were "another data point in what is a troubling picture of Iranian negative involvement in Iraq."

"We have found that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard has essentially subcontracted out to some elements of Hezbollah, using them as a pass through for material, technology and other material assistance," McCormack said. "It is of deep concern to us."

Ray Takeyh, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, said the allegations about Hezbollah were not surprising.

"Iran has always worked through Hezbollah, and it makes sense because Hezbollah is well-versed in this kind of terrain ... in this kind of ambiguous situation where there is sectarian violence and an outside occupation," said Takeyh.

An American soldier was killed Monday by an explosion in Salahuddin province, a center for Sunni insurgents northwest of Baghdad. The U.S. military also reported the deaths of five U.S. service members killed in fighting a day earlier, in attacks in Baghdad and western Anbar province.

But violence appeared sharply down in Baghdad and other parts of the country, amid an intensified U.S. security sweep aimed at uprooting Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias in the capital and areas to the northeast and south.

Iraqi police reported four civilians killed in separate attacks in Baghdad. And car bomb hit the Baghdad district of Binouk in the evening, killing seven people and wounding 33, hospital officials said.

U.S. warplanes struck buildings in the mostly Shiite city of Diwaniyah with 500-pound bombs early Monday, targeting sites suspected as the source of mortar fire, the U.S. Air Force said. Iraqi police in the city said the raid killed 10 civilians, including women and children, wounded 25 others and damaged six homes. The police spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to release the information.

AP Television News footage from the area showed houses with large holes, as residents dug through rubble, pulling out at least one person on a stretcher. Following the raid, residents protested in the streets, and Iraqi police fired in the air to disperse them, killing one person. Some protesters fired back, wounding two policemen, a police officer said, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk to the press.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Jul 07 - 08:01 AM

U.N. confirms N. Korea has shut down its nuclear reactor

Story Highlights
NEW: U.N. inspectors verify North Korea has shut down its nuclear reactor

NEW: S. Korea sent more oil to the North on Monday to reward its compliance

Shutdown is North's first step in five years toward de-nuclearization

U.S. welcomes Pyongyang's announcement of reactor shutdown

BANGKOK, Thailand (AP) -- United Nations inspectors have verified that North Korea has shut down its sole functioning nuclear reactor, the chief of the watchdog agency said Monday, confirming the isolated country had taken its first step in nearly five years to halt production of atomic weapons.

South Korea sent more oil to the North on Monday to reward its compliance with an international disarmament agreement.

"Our inspectors are there. They verified the shutting down of the reactor yesterday," said Mohamed ElBaradei, chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency,

"The process has been going quite well and we have had good cooperation from North Korea. It's a good step in the right direction," ElBaradei said, speaking in Bangkok ahead of an event sponsored by Thailand's Ministry of Science.

A North Korean diplomat said Sunday that North Korea was ready to start dismantling its nuclear programs following the shutdown of its reactor, as long as the United States lifts all sanctions against the communist nation.

Kim Myong Gil, minister at the North's mission to the United Nations in New York, confirmed the reactor was shut down Saturday after receipt of a South Korean oil shipment.

"Immediately after the arrival of the first heavy fuel oil, the facilities were shut down," Kim told The Associated Press by telephone.

North Korea's Foreign Ministry said any future progress in disarmament would depend "on what practical measures the U.S. and Japan, in particular, will take to roll back their hostile policies toward" North Korea, according to the statement carried by the official Korean Central News Agency.

IAEA inspectors were expelled from the North in late 2002 at the start of the nuclear crisis. A 10-member team arrived Saturday in North Korea to make sure the reactor at Yongbyon was switched off -- the first step by the North to scale back its weapons program since the standoff began.

Kim noted that the next steps included the North making a declaration of its nuclear program and disabling the facilities.

U.S. general: North Korea tested advanced missiles

But he said that would happen only if Washington takes actions "in parallel," including removing wider economic sanctions and striking the country from a list of states that sponsor terrorism.

"After the shutdown, then we will discuss about the economic sanctions lifting and removing of the terrorism list. All those things should be discussed and resolved," Kim said.

The main U.S. envoy on the North Korea nuclear issue, Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill, has said he believes the North's nuclear facilities could be completely disabled by the end of the year and that he expected a complete declaration of its atomic programs within months.

Responding to the North's demand that sanctions be lifted, Hill said Sunday in Seoul: "They want some things, we want some things, and we have to sit down and figure out how everything's going to be sequenced."

Japan said it was ready to discuss outstanding issues with North Korea, but said the country had already delayed implementing an agreement reached at the arms talks in February.

"The North is already running late on the agreement, and we urge them to carry through with the steps immediately," said Nori Shikata, assistant press secretary for Japan's Foreign Ministry.

Hill said earlier in Tokyo that it could take the IAEA at least a day to verify the shutdown because there were five sites within the North's nuclear complex to inspect, including the reactor.

Despite the lack of verification, the U.S. diplomat said he was confident the shutdown had begun.

"I think we have every reason to believe they have started the shutdown," he said, adding that the complete process would take a few days to allow equipment to cool before IAEA seals could be applied.

Hill was touring the region ahead of resumed six-nation nuclear talks with North Korea starting Wednesday in Beijing. That session will focus on setting up a "work plan and a timeframe" for how disarmament would proceed, Hill said in Seoul, adding he planned to meet his North Korean counterpart Tuesday ahead of the formal start of talks.

Hill also said he hoped working groups set up under the talks process -- to discuss details of the North's disarmament and on normalizing its relations with the U.S. and Japan -- could resume meeting by the end of August.

"If we don't take these steps a little more quickly than we've taken that first step, then we're going to fall way behind again," Hill said.

South Korea's nuclear envoy Chun Yung-woo called the North's shutdown a "milestone" and told the AP the resumed nuclear negotiations would be held "in a better atmosphere than ever before." The talks last met in March.

Still, Chun stressed "the next phase will be more difficult than the reactor shutdown."

The oil that the North received Saturday via a South Korean ship was an initial 6,200 tons of a total 50,000 tons as a reward for the reactor shutdown. Under a February agreement at the arms talks, North Korea will receive a total equivalent of 1 million tons of oil for dismantling its nuclear programs.

North Korea withdrew from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and restarted its reactor in early 2003, after Washington accused it of a secret uranium enrichment program in violation of an earlier disarmament deal and halted oil deliveries.

International negotiations on the issue have snagged on a variety of issues, including the North's anger over comments by U.S. officials about its government and financial restrictions placed on a bank where North Korea held accounts.

Moves to resolve the standoff gained momentum in the wake of North Korea's underground test nuclear explosion in October, after which the U.S. took steps to reverse its previous hard-line policy and accommodate North Korean demands.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Jul 07 - 10:36 AM

By the bye, did any of you prophets of doom ever get onto that Russian who swore blind that the US were going to attack Iran on the 6th April? Oh! yes I forgot, he didn't say which 6th of April.

But I take it that North Korea is now off the list.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Jul 07 - 11:34 AM

A Reactor Shut Down

Diplomacy with North Korea finally takes a step forward.
Tuesday, July 17, 2007; Page A18


INTERNATIONAL inspectors yesterday confirmed that North Korea had shut down its Yongbyon nuclear reactor -- and that nearly four years of multilateral diplomacy by the Bush administration had achieved a tangible result. Though some Western experts believe that the aging facility was already inoperative or close to it, the shutdown and readmission of inspectors is still significant: It will provide some assurance that North Korea's stock of nuclear bombs and plutonium will not grow. But as the administration itself has acknowledged, the first real test of whether North Korea can be disarmed by diplomacy still lies ahead.

The test will be whether the regime of Kim Jong Il follows through on its commitment to fully disclose all of its nuclear programs and materials -- something it has never been willing to do, even when it was bound by the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The CIA believed North Korea had assembled one or two crude nuclear weapons by the early 1990s; since 2002, when it evicted inspectors and withdrew from the Non-Proliferation Treaty, it may have produced enough plutonium for another 10 to 12 bombs. It also purchased uranium-enrichment equipment from the network of Pakistani scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan but has never publicly admitted it. Full disclosure would reveal just how large North Korea's nuclear arsenal is and would set the stage for its possible dismantlement. Disclosure would also indicate that one of the world's most isolated and criminal regimes might be prepared to initiate an entirely new relationship with its neighbors and the United States.

It's hard to believe that a dictatorship that tolerated the death by famine of millions of its own people, that brutally imprisons thousands of others in camps, and that depends on drug trafficking, cigarette smuggling and counterfeiting for much of its income is interested in or capable of such a momentous change. In the past, Pyongyang has used negotiations over its weapons merely as a means to extort food, fuel and money, and it has proved skillful in doing so. But the State Department is optimistic; the lead negotiator, Assistant Secretary of State Christopher R. Hill, predicted recently that "we are going to be able to achieve our full objectives" and that North Korea's promised disclosure could be made within months.

What isn't yet known is what North Korea will demand in exchange for further steps. The deal it struck with the United States, South Korea, China, Japan and Russia in February calls for it to receive 950,000 tons of fuel oil, in addition to the 50,000 tons now being delivered. But before shutting down Yongbyon, North Korea delayed for three months and extracted several financial and political concessions from a Bush administration eager to show progress. Mr. Kim is likely to demand much bigger favors, which is why it's not surprising to hear about planning at State for negotiations on a possible peace treaty. The danger is that North Korea will take advantage of an outgoing administration's zeal to record a legacy achievement, without changing its longstanding and fundamental commitment to nuclear weapons. That's why U.S. negotiators should insist that a full and credible nuclear disclosure by North Korea precede any further concessions by the United States or its partners.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Jul 07 - 09:32 AM

Detained Americans appear to 'confess' on Iranian state television

Story Highlights
Two Iranian-Americans appear and make statements on Iranian state TV

Program was heavily promoted and heavily edited

U.S. objects to detainees' being "paraded" on TV, demands their release

One is a think-tank scholar, the other an urban planning consultant


TEHRAN, Iran (CNN) -- Iranian television Wednesday aired lengthy excerpts of what it called confessions by two jailed Iranian-Americans accused of plotting to undermine the Islamic republic, a development the U.S. State Department condemned.

The heavily promoted, heavily edited broadcast on Iran's IRIB television network featured scholar Haleh Esfandiari and urban planning consultant Kian Tajbakhsh, both of whom were arrested by Iranian authorities over the past few months.

In it, they appear to admit being part of a U.S.-led covert effort to undermine Iran's theocratic government.

"I was consulting with Iranian experts in Washington, D.C., and asking them for names," said Esfandiari, a 67-year-old scholar at the Washington-based Woodrow Wilson Center for International Scholars. "Every once in a while, I would go to Iran when I had a name. I would contact this person and set up a meeting."

The Iranian program cut between their statements and scenes of revolutions in Ukraine, Kyrgystan and the former Soviet republic of Georgia as commentators tried to link their efforts to U.S. efforts to promote change in Iran.

Esfandiari's husband, Shaul Bakhash, said his wife's statement "mirrors the language that the Ministry of Intelligence has used over these last few weeks to describe the case."

He added, "I don't think she looked very well at all. She's lost a great deal of weight. She looked very pale to me."

Don't Miss
Poll: Iranians want democracy, nuclear inspections
Though their surroundings appeared comfortable, both Esfandiari and Tajbakhsh were being held at Evin prison outside Tehran, Iran. U.S. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said the Iranians have refused U.S. requests for consular visits from Swiss diplomats.

"We're appalled by the fact that these innocent people were paraded on Iranian state television," McCormack said. He said none of those held pose any threat to the Iranian regime or people, and should be allowed to return home "as soon as possible."

Washington and Tehran have not had diplomatic relations since 1979.

The United States has repeatedly accused /topics/iran" class="cnnInlineTopic">Iran of meddling in the U.S.-led war in Iraq by supplying weapons and training to Shiite Muslim militias, and is currently holding five Iranians it accuses of aiding those efforts. Iran says the men are diplomats and that the United States raided a consulate it established in the predominantly Kurdish city of Irbil in Iraq. But the United States says the men were taken at a liaison office that lacks diplomatic status.

Esfandiari is the head of the Middle Eastern studies program at the Wilson Center. She went to Iran in late 2006 to visit her 93-year-old mother, and was prevented from leaving for months during repeated rounds of questioning by Iranian authorities before her arrest in May.

Former U.S. Rep. Lee Hamilton, the center's director, told CNN in May that Esfandiari may have been captured because the Iranians mistakenly linked her to a $75 million U.S. campaign to promote democratic liberalization within Iran. Hamilton said Esfandiari received no money from that effort, but said the U.S. government should be more open about the fund's goals.

"If the policy of the United States government is to overthrow the government, then the Democracy Fund obviously would be viewed with a great deal of suspicion and hostility by the target government," he said.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Jul 07 - 09:45 AM

My Mother's Interrogators

In an Iranian Propaganda Broadcast, the Real Guilty Party Is Clear

By Haleh Bakhash
Thursday, July 19, 2007; Page A19

Yesterday marked 6 1/2 months since masked agents of Iran's Intelligence Ministry robbed my mother, Haleh Esfandiari, of her belongings and passports at knife-point. It had been more than 70 days since her incarceration in Tehran's notorious Evin Prison before I finally saw her this week -- not as a free woman, but in footage of a KGB-style television "confession" broadcast by Iran's state-run television.

The program broadcast nationwide yesterday -- announced with much fanfare by the Intelligence Ministry on Monday and expected to be continued today -- was supposed to show Iran and ostensibly the world my mother's complicity in a plan to undermine the Islamic Republic using, of all things, female activists and academics. But the footage turned out to be a typical secret police job of deception, vicious in intent yet clumsily contrived.

The broadcast began with a lie. My mother was shown sitting on a sofa in what looked like the living room of a house or a pleasant office, a plant next to the couch, a bottle of water on the table in front of her. In reality my mother, head of the Middle East Program at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington and a 67-year-old grandmother of two, has spent the past 10 weeks in a cramped cell that past prisoners have said lacks a cot or even a mat. For being an American Iranian scholar, she has been forced to sleep on the floor. She has been subjected to hundreds of hours of harsh and intimidating interrogations, often while blindfolded, totally cut off from the outside world and without access to her family or lawyer, despite our repeated requests to see her.

The broadcast showed my mother "conversing" with someone off camera in what was meant to appear to be a relaxed setting. Her voice was strong. But I was shocked at her appearance. She has aged several years in just months. She looked gaunt -- she has lost a considerable amount of weight -- and pale.

The bulk of the program was made up of footage of years-old revolutions in Eastern Europe. Also shown was another jailed dual citizen, Kian Tajbakhsh, an urban planner arrested in May. My mother is seen saying that her job was "to identify speakers" and "to organize conferences." These and other statements she made about her work at the Wilson Center were cut off in mid-sentence and spliced with seemingly endless footage of civil unrest in Eastern European countries, as if organizing conferences and talks amounts to revolutionary activity. So it went from one sorry frame to another.

It was obvious from the words she used that much of what my mother said was scripted. Some of the phrases that she and two other prisoners -- Tajbakhsh and a man arrested last year who has since been released -- are shown saying echo statements that Iran's Intelligence Ministry has issued to describe their cases. Her statements, to me, sounded wooden -- unnatural and coerced. But did she say anything incriminating? Certainly not.

What Iran's security authorities, in their infinite wisdom, are presenting to the world and to their domestic audience is a doctored "interview" in which dishonest cutting and splicing unconvincingly attempt to make the most ordinary statement appear to be part of a great "conspiracy," a harbinger of massive subversion.

As I watched my mother, I thought of our family's trauma over the past several months and of the suffering of other families whose parents, children, brothers and sisters have been unlawfully imprisoned in Iran and who cannot be heard.

But I also thought about the fact that our ordeal has been nothing compared with my mother's: nearly seven months of interrogations; more than 10 weeks in solitary confinement; threats of trial and long years of imprisonment; being alone in the hands of brutal men going about their brutal business.

When the television program ended, I felt contempt for my mother's jailers and interrogators. But I was filled with admiration for my mother. In hugely difficult circumstances, she preserved her dignity, held her head high and did not lie. She did not falsely implicate others. It is her jailers, I thought, who have to work in the dark, behind the closed doors of prison interrogation rooms. It is they who hide their faces, who try to manipulate public opinion by controlling the media, smearing reputations and dishonestly splicing film.

My mother has nothing to be ashamed of. They do.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Aug 07 - 09:25 AM

From the Washington Post:


Bankrolling Iran
The World Bank's Largess Is Undermining the U.N. and the West

By Mark Kirk
Friday, August 10, 2007; Page A13


Both the U.N. Security Council and the International Atomic Energy Agency have found Iran in breach of its obligations under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The IAEA reports that Iran ignored the Security Council's February deadline to stop enriching uranium and has even expanded its nuclear program.

As Iran's Atomic Energy Organization moves toward its announced goal of operating 50,000 uranium enrichment centrifuges in Natanz, the World Bank is funding nine government projects in Iran totaling $1.35 billion -- one of which operates in Isfahan, where Iran's nuclear program is headquartered.

While the World Bank is part of the U.N. family, the bank's board is disconnected from the policies of key U.N. agencies -- especially the Security Council and the IAEA. The United States remains the top investor in the World Bank, contributing $950 million in 2006 and $940 million this year. In June the House of Representatives approved another $950 million. Meanwhile, the bank will disburse $220 million to Iran this year, with more than $870 million in the pipeline for 2008, 2009 and 2010.

Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush all certified that Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism. The Treasury Department's Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence spends considerable effort locating Iranian assets to freeze.

Yet published World Bank documents reflect a worldview toward Iran that is backward, uneducated and outdated. All current projects in Iran are based on a 2001 Interim Assistance Strategy, in which the bank wrote:

"There is a relatively animated and active political competition in Iran through which people express their views, choice of society, economic aspirations and political representation. . . . Since the 1979 Revolution, Iran has given strong and special emphasis to human development, social protection, and 'social justice,' with significant progress to date."

Freedom House, the global leader in assessing personal and political freedoms, had a different perspective in its 2006 Freedom in the World report:

"Iranians cannot change their government democratically. . . . Corruption is pervasive. . . . Freedom of expression is limited. . . . Religious freedom is limited. . . . Academic freedom in Iran is limited. . . . Although the constitution prohibits arbitrary arrest and detention, these practices are very common and increasingly routine."

The 2001 bank document notes that Iran has begun "an era of détente and greater openness to the outside world." The Security Council and the IAEA appear to disagree with that assessment.

One has to wonder why a country that exports 2.6 million barrels of oil a day needs World Bank development assistance. Iran's oil export revenue nearly doubled between 2003 and 2005, from $23.7 billion to $46.6 billion. That number grew to $50 billion last year. Iran's real gross domestic product grew 4.8 percent in 2004 and 5.6 percent in 2005. Why does Iran need World Bank aid?

Furthermore, the bank's investment in Iran stands in stark contrast to its work in Iraq. Iraq was a founding member of the World Bank in 1945, yet it took the bank 2 1/2 years after the fall of Saddam Hussein to approve one development project. To date, the board has approved only four projects, totaling $399 million, for the new Iraqi government -- and little of that money has been spent.

The World Bank's board is not only disconnected from the Security Council's policies but is also at odds with the Iran policies of British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

As the Treasury acts to dry up funding for Tehran, the World Bank is providing support to the Iranian government through 2010. As President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad pledges the destruction of Israel, funds Hezbollah and Hamas, and defies Security Council resolutions, the bank's board will approve further Iran disbursements. U.S. law requires the American executive director at the bank to vote against any project for the Iranian government. However, since the United States has no veto power on the bank's board, this policy is largely symbolic. We need to do better.

This summer the bank has gotten a president who works well with allies -- former deputy secretary of state Robert Zoellick. It would be prudent for Zoellick to realign the bank's policies with Security Council resolutions on Iran. As long as the Security Council condemns the actions of Ahmadinejad, the World Bank should suspend funding for his government.

Multilateral organizations represent the best and greatest potential for U.S. and allied diplomacy. The success of this diplomacy will be enhanced if the United Nations and World Bank work together, particularly on Iran.

The writer, a Republican representative from Illinois, is a member of the House Appropriations subcommittee on state-foreign operations. He previously served on the staff of the World Bank's International Finance Corp.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Aug 07 - 02:29 PM

Washington Post:

Tougher on Iran
The Revolutionary Guard is at war with the United States. Why not fight back?
Tuesday, August 21, 2007; Page A14


IRAN'S REVOLUTIONARY Guard Corps is a sprawling organization involved in myriad activities, including guarding borders, pumping oil, operating ports, smuggling, manufacturing pharmaceuticals, building Iran's nuclear program -- and supplying the weapons that are killing a growing number of American soldiers in Iraq. According to the Pentagon, one-third of the U.S. troops who died in Iraq last month -- 23 soldiers -- were killed by "explosively formed penetrators," sophisticated bombs supplied by Tehran. Iran also delivers rockets and other weapons to Shiite militias; on Sunday, Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch said that about 50 members of the Revolutionary Guard Corps were operating in the area south of Baghdad, where they are "facilitating training of Shiite extremists."

In effect, the Revolutionary Guard, a radical state within Iran's Islamic state, is waging war against the United States and trying to kill as many American soldiers as possible. In response, the Bush administration is considering categorizing the Guard as a "specially designated global terrorist" organization under a post-Sept. 11 executive order aimed at blocking terrorists' access to their assets. The measure is reportedly part of a package the administration is considering to increase pressure on Iran at a time when it is defying U.N. orders to freeze its nuclear program and is showing no hint of flexibility in talks with the United States and the European Union.

This seems to be the least the United States should be doing, given the soaring number of Iranian-sponsored bomb attacks in Iraq. What's puzzling are the murmurs of disapproval from European diplomats and others who say they favor using diplomacy and economic pressure, rather than military action, to rein in Iran. So far, the diplomacy and sanctions haven't been working: Iran has been unresponsive to extensive European deal-making efforts and hasn't taken up a year-old U.S. offer of across-the-board negotiations in exchange for stopping its uranium enrichment. The sanctions have been too weak to cause the regime serious discomfort, and tougher measures are being blocked in the U.N. Security Council by China and Russia.

Increased economic pressure could be the main byproduct of designating the Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization. The designation could cause banks and exporters in Europe and Asia that do business with Guard affiliates to pull back. So what's the objection? Some European diplomats say they fear that an escalating confrontation between the United States and Iran will end in war. But sanctions are the alternative to war -- Iran already rejected initiatives aimed at ending its nuclear program by offering economic concessions and other carrots.

Others suggest that the administration's labeling of a principal arm of the Iranian regime as a terrorist group would contradict its recent embrace of bilateral talks with Tehran about Iraq. Yet that contradiction, if it exists, seems puny compared with that of a regime that participates in those discussions while escalating its surrogate war against American troops. If Iran chooses to fight as well as talk, the United States should not shrink from fighting back with all the economic weapons it can muster.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Sep 07 - 11:04 PM

Washington Post:

Middle East Volcano

By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, September 21, 2007; Page A19

On Sept. 6, something important happened in northern Syria. Problem is, no one knows exactly what. Except for those few who were involved, and they're not saying.

We do know that Israel carried out an airstrike. How do we know it was important? Because in Israel, where leaking is an art form, even the best-informed don't have a clue. They tell me they have never seen a better-kept secret.

Discussion PolicyDiscussion Policy CLOSEComments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
Which suggests that whatever happened near Dayr az Zawr was no accidental intrusion into Syrian airspace, no dry run for an attack on Iran, no strike on some conventional target such as an Iranian Revolutionary Guard base or a weapons shipment on its way to Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Circumstantial evidence points to this being an attack on some nuclear facility provided by North Korea.

Three days earlier, a freighter flying the North Korean flag docked in the Syrian port city of Tartus with a shipment of "cement." Long way to go for cement. Within days, a top State Department official warned that "there may have been contact between Syria and some secret suppliers for nuclear equipment." Three days later, the six-party meeting on dismantling North Korea's nuclear facilities scheduled for Sept. 19 was suddenly postponed, officially by China, almost certainly at the behest of North Korea.

Apart from the usual suspects -- Syria, Iran, Libya and Russia -- only two countries registered strong protests to the Israeli strike: Turkey and North Korea. Turkey we can understand. Its military may have permitted Israel an overflight corridor without ever having told the Islamist civilian government. But North Korea? What business is this of North Korea's? Unless it was a North Korean facility being hit.

Which raises alarms for many reasons. First, it would undermine the whole North Korean disarmament process. Pyongyang might be selling its stuff to other rogue states or perhaps just temporarily hiding it abroad while permitting ostentatious inspections back home.

Second, there are ominous implications for the Middle East. Syria has long had chemical weapons -- on Monday, Jane's Defence Weekly reported on an accident that killed dozens of Syrians and Iranians loading a nerve-gas warhead onto a Syrian missile -- but Israel will not tolerate a nuclear Syria.

Tensions are already extremely high because of Iran's headlong rush to go nuclear. In fending off sanctions and possible military action, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has chosen a radically aggressive campaign to assemble, deploy, flaunt and partially activate Iran's proxies in the Arab Middle East:

(1) Hamas launching rockets into Israeli towns and villages across the border from the Gaza Strip. Its intention is to invite an Israeli reaction, preferably a bloody and telegenic ground assault.

(2) Hezbollah heavily rearmed with Iranian rockets transshipped through Syria and preparing for the next round of fighting with Israel. The third Lebanon war, now inevitable, awaits only Tehran's order.

(3) Syria, Iran's only Arab client state, building up forces across the Golan Heights frontier with Israel. And on Wednesday, yet another anti-Syrian member of Lebanon's parliament was killed in a massive car bombing.

(4) The al-Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard training and equipping Shiite extremist militias in the use of the deadliest IEDs and rocketry against American and Iraqi troops. Iran is similarly helping the Taliban attack NATO forces in Afghanistan.

Why is Iran doing this? Because it has its eye on a single prize: the bomb. It needs a bit more time, knowing that once it goes nuclear, it becomes the regional superpower and Persian Gulf hegemon.

Iran's assets in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria and Iraq are poised and ready. Ahmadinejad's message is this: If anyone dares attack our nuclear facilities, we will fully activate our proxies, unleashing unrestrained destruction on Israel, moderate Arabs, Iraq and U.S. interests -- in addition to the usual, such as mining the Strait of Hormuz and causing an acute oil crisis and worldwide recession.

This is an extremely high-stakes game. The time window is narrow. In probably less than two years, Ahmadinejad will have the bomb.

The world is not quite ready to acquiesce. The new president of France has declared a nuclear Iran " unacceptable." The French foreign minister warned that "it is necessary to prepare for the worst" -- and "the worst, it's war, sir."

Which makes it all the more urgent that powerful sanctions be slapped on the Iranian regime. Sanctions will not stop Ahmadinejad. But there are others in the Iranian elite who might stop him and the nuclear program before the volcano explodes. These rival elites may be radical, but they are not suicidal. And they believe, with reason, that whatever damage Ahmadinejad's apocalyptic folly may inflict upon the region and the world, on Crusader and Jew, on infidel and believer, the one certain result of such an eruption is Iran's Islamic republic buried under the ash.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Peace
Date: 21 Sep 07 - 11:27 PM

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,2170766,00.html

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Sep 07 - 02:07 PM

Hmmm.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 28 Sep 07 - 04:07 PM

France Flips While Congress Shifts

By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, September 28, 2007; Page A19

Ahmadinejad at Columbia provided the entertainment, but Sarkozy at the United Nations provided the substance. On the largest possible stage -- the U.N. General Assembly -- President Nicolas Sarkozy put Iran on notice. His predecessor, Jacques Chirac, had said that France could live with an Iranian nuclear bomb. Sarkozy said that France cannot. He declared Iran's nuclear ambitions "an unacceptable risk to stability in the region and in the world."

His foreign minister, Bernard Kouchner, had said earlier that the world faces two choices -- successful diplomacy to stop Iran's nuclear program or war. And Sarkozy himself has no great hopes for the Security Council, where China and Russia are blocking any effective action against Iran. He does hope to get the European Union to join the United States in imposing serious sanctions.

"Weakness and renunciation do not lead to peace," he warned. "They lead to war." This warning about appeasement was intended particularly for Germany, which for commercial reasons has been resisting U.S. pressure to support effective sanctions.

Sarkozy is no American lapdog. Like every Fifth Republic president, he begins with the notion of French exceptionalism. But whereas traditional Gaullism tended to define French grandeur as establishing a counterweight to American power, Sarkozy is not averse to seeing French assertiveness exercised in conjunction with the United States. As Kouchner put it, "permanent anti-Americanism" is "a tradition we are working to overcome."

This French about-face creates a crucial shift in the balance of forces within Europe. The East Europeans are naturally pro-American for reasons of history (fresh memories of America's role in defeating their Soviet occupiers) and geography (physical proximity to a newly revived and aggressive Russia). Western Europe is intrinsically wary of American power and culturally anti-American by reflex. France's change from Chirac to Sarkozy, from foreign minister Dominique de Villepin (who actively lobbied Third World countries to oppose America on Iraq) to Kouchner (who supported the U.S. invasion on humanitarian grounds) represents an enormous shift in Old Europe's relationship to the United States.


Britain is a natural ally. Germany, given its history, is more follower than leader. France can define European policy, and Sarkozy intends to.

The French flip is only one part of the changing landscape that has given new life to Bush's Iran and Iraq policies in the waning months of his administration. The mood in Congress also has significantly shifted.

Just this week, the House overwhelmingly passed a resolution calling for very strong sanctions on Iran and urging the administration to designate Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist entity. A similar measure passed the Senate on Wednesday, 76 to 22, declaring that it is "a critical national interest of the United States" to prevent Iran from using Shiite militias inside Iraq to subvert the U.S.-backed government in Baghdad.

A few months ago, the question was: Will the Democratic Congress force a withdrawal from Iraq? Today the question in Congress is: What can be done to achieve success in Iraq -- most specifically, by countering Iran, which is intent on seeing us fail?

This change in mood and subject is entirely the result of changes on the ground. It takes time for reality to seep into a Washington debate. But after the Petraeus-Crocker testimony, the reality of the relative success of our new counterinsurgency strategy -- and the renewed possibility of ultimate success in Iraq -- became no longer deniable.

And that reality is reflected even in the rhetoric of Hillary Rodham Clinton, the most politically sophisticated of the Democratic presidential candidates. She does vote against war funding in order to alter the president's policy (and to appease the left), but that is as a senator. When asked what she would do as president, she carefully hedges. She says that it would depend on the situation at the time, for example, whether our alliance with the Sunni tribes will have succeeded in defeating al-Qaeda in Iraq. But when asked by ABC News if she would bring U.S. troops home by January 2013, she refused to "get into hypotheticals and make pledges."

Bush's presidency -- and foreign policy -- were pronounced dead on the morning after the 2006 election. Not so. France is going to join us in a last-ditch effort to find a nonmilitary solution to the Iranian issue. And on Iraq, the relative success of the surge has won President Bush the leeway to continue the Petraeus counterinsurgency strategy to the end of his term. Congress, and realistic Democrats, are finally beginning to think seriously about making that strategy succeed and planning for what comes after.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 02:32 PM

Washington Post:

Sanctions Won't Stop Tehran

By Selig S. Harrison
Tuesday, October 2, 2007; Page A19

Suppose that the Bush administration abandons its campaign for economic sanctions, tones down talk of war and opens direct negotiations with Iran about its nuclear program. Suppose also that it drops its insistence on the suspension of uranium enrichment as a precondition for dialogue.

Would Iran accept the terms for denuclearization accepted by North Korea in the direct negotiations that led to the Feb. 13 agreement with Pyongyang and that are now being implemented in fits and starts: a no-attack pledge, normalized economic and diplomatic relations, economic aid, and removal from the U.S. list of terrorist states?

Based on a week of high-level discussions in Tehran recently and on previous visits during earlier stages of the nuclear program, my assessment is that Iran would demand much tougher terms, including a freeze of Israel's Dimona reactor and a ban on the U.S. use of nuclear weapons in the Persian Gulf.

Both supporters and opponents of Iran's clerical regime favor developing a civilian nuclear program, not only for electricity generation but also because it can be upgraded to produce nuclear weapons. But Tehran is not in a hurry to invoke its nuclear option, I was told, and is prepared for a verifiable ceiling on its uranium program that would bar weapons-grade enrichment in return for U.S. security concessions.

Such concessions, several officials suggested, would have to go beyond pledges not to attack or to seek "regime change" through covert operations. Alireza Akbari, an adviser to Iran's National Security Council and a former deputy defense minister, was one of those who proposed a freeze of Israel's Dimona reactor and some form of bilateral or multilateral U.S. commitment not to use or deploy nuclear weapons in the Persian Gulf. "How do we know that your four aircraft carriers stationed off our coasts are not equipped with tactical nuclear weapons?" he asked.

Significantly, no one I met demanded the elimination of the approximately 200 nuclear weapons that Israel is believed to have already produced at Dimona or called for a U.S. pledge not to use or deploy nuclear weapons that would extend beyond the Gulf and would nullify the U.S. security commitment to Israel.


There are three major reasons why preventing an Iranian nuclear weapons capability would be much more difficult than getting North Korea to dismantle its nuclear arsenal.

First, Iran has petroleum riches. Unlike Pyongyang, it doesn't need a deal for economic reasons.

Second, the Iran-Iraq war, in which an estimated 200,000 Iranians were killed, is still a searing memory in Tehran. "If we had possessed nuclear weapons then, Saddam would not have dared to attack us," says Amir Mohabian, editor of the influential conservative daily Reselaat.

Third, Iran has a strong sense of historically based national identity and wants nuclear weapons primarily to assert major-power status. Kim Jong Il presides over an insecure regime struggling for short-term survival. He has developed nuclear weapons to deter U.S. military and financial pressures that threaten his immediate power and perquisites. The two Koreas would have to confederate and later reunify before Korea could achieve major-power status.

The drive for recognition as a major power has motivated Iran's nuclear ambitions from the start. The late Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi initiated the weapons program 34 years ago, with the help of U.S. and European companies, as part of an effort to establish himself as a nationalist modernizer who would restore the regional preeminence Tehran had intermittently enjoyed in earlier centuries.

To be sure, concern about what was then a nascent Israeli nuclear weapons program and the desire for civilian nuclear energy to supplement petroleum made the acquisition of nuclear technology attractive. But the shah wanted visible progress in nuclear development primarily to enhance his domestic political stature, I was told by Jafar Nadim, then undersecretary of foreign affairs, during a 1978 visit to Tehran. It would be a symbol of Persian technological superiority over Arabs, Nadim said, and would "help us to get the respect we feel we deserve from you people. You should understand, we Persians have a very ancient, very advanced culture, yet we have been a victim of so many insults and invasions, and now we have to stand up."

After winning the presidency in 2005, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad recognized that nuclear weapons could be used as an emotive symbol of sovereignty. He has systematically exploited nationalist resentment of U.S. pressure on the nuclear issue to strengthen his position in dealing with the United States and to counter domestic political rivals.

The drive for sanctions will only strengthen Ahmadinejad. In place of economic and military pressure, the United States should seek to defuse the Iranian nuclear danger through bilateral and multilateral dialogue that addresses Iranian and U.S. security concerns from Dimona to the Strait of Hormuz and, eventually, includes all of Iran's key regional neighbors, including Israel.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 02:37 PM

Oh piffle.

Sanctions won't stop the USA either. The USA is the one that is planning to start another war. You're lookin' at the world through a telescope backwards, BB. Note how it makes everything that is real look very, very tiny.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 02:42 PM

"The USA is the one that is planning to start another war"


And it was France and Britain that started WWII- The Germans just took over what they wanted: It was the Allies that made it a war by fighting back.


If you feel that Iran has the right to violate it's treaty obligations to the UN, and to develop nuclear weapons that are a threat to others, then I suppose you can claim that the US might start a war- It would be ok for the Iranians to wipe out Israel, of course, since that would be a peaceful effort...

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: DougR
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 03:47 PM

And the North Korean agreement to get out of the nuclear business was negotiated by what administration? Clinton? I don't think so. Yep, the Bush administration.

(Do I hear muted applause?)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 03:56 PM

Since N. Korea has agreed several times, and has yet to comply, I don't think we can give Bush credit yet- though there was all sorts of credit given to Clinton for his unsuccessful efforts...

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 04:33 PM

Where the Bush Administration really deserves credit with regard to North Korea is for holding tough to the line that bi-lateral talks amongst parties would not be held all six had to come to a common understanding and agreement - that ended the game that North Korea had been playing for decades.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 04:50 PM

The USA is the one playing the role of pre-WWII Germany at the present time, BB. It's a great power making up patently phony excuses to launch first strikes on minor powers, just as Germany did. It's accusing others of its own devious intentions and its own crimes, just like Germany did. That's why I say you're looking through the telescope backwards.

But if I'd said that about Germany to any loyal German back in '39, of course, they'd have almost certainly thought I was nuts or just plain mistaken or wrongheaded...that's how political loyalty usually works. You just happen to be a loyal American who believes the official line of government and media propaganda. I understand that, and there's nothing I expect to ever be able to do about it...and it doesn't make me regard you badly as a human being, because your intentions are honorable, as are mine.

C'est la vie.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 06:16 PM

I'll respectfully disagree with your assesment, LH.

Whose propaganda is it that I SHOULD believe? I try to read all points of view, and determine what the actual facts are.

Everyone agrees that Iran has violated its obligations, and refuses to stop working on a nuclear device.

Can you show me any POV that does NOT have Iran threatening the present Israeli government and people?

Does, or does not, the US have treaty obligations if Israel is attacked?

If an attack is made on a treaty ally of the US ( such as Canada, NATO members, or Israel) with WMD ( of any kind- chimcal, biological, or nuclear), isn't it the stated policy of ALL US administrations ( as put forward by Truman on) that we will react with force up to and including nuclear weapons?

Is it not the responsibility of the US ( in its own interest) to prevent, when possible, the situation where the US is forced into a nuclear war?


And did not the European powers state ( several years ago) that the US should not act because they would resolve the problem and stop Iran's development of nuclear weapons? Are you claiming that they have been successful?


IF Iran demonstrates that it has a working nuclear weapon, I suspect that the amount of oil coming out of the middle east to ANY country over the next few decades ( it will take that long to put out the fires) will be minimal. Thus China will be drawn in, making it a global thermonuclear war.


And all because we don't want to have the UN hold Iran to the treaty obligations it agreed to when the UN gave it the civilian nuclear technology that Iran claims is all it is trying to develope.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 06:39 PM

Of course the USA has treaty obligations to protect Israel if Israel is attacked. I have no argument with that. I think it's Iran and Syria that are in danger of being attacked here, far more than Israel.

(As for covert actions, various forms of unofficial attack and sabotage, terrorist attacks, or attacks by proxy, those have been carried out anyway on all parties by all parties over the last few years, if not decades, so no one has the moral high ground when it comes to that. When I speak of an attack, I'm speaking of a direct attack BY the armed forces of a nation.)

I have no doubt that Iran is enriching uranium...but I have no proof that they are not doing it in order to produce nuclear power, as they claim. If they are doing it indeed to build nuclear weapons, I don't regard the mere building of weapons as a crime. I regard the USE of weapons as a crime.

If you are opposed to nuclear proliferation, and I can well understand why you would be, then you must in all justice be opposed to Israel building and deploying nuclear weapons too, I would think. But you're not. You know as well as I do that they already have done so, everyone knows it. It's just not official. It's an unspoken, unadmitted reality that everyone is aware of.

If you think it's okay for Israel to illegally and clandestinely commit nuclear proliferation and get away with it...but it's not okay for Iran, North Korea, or Syria or anyone else to do it...then what you are saying basically is something like this: Israelis are very good human beings who can do whatever they want to, because I like them. Syrians, Iranians, and North Koreans are evil subhumans who should be massacred if they dare to do what Israelis have already done. They cannot EVER be allowed equality with Israelis or with Americans because they are countries under regimes which are inherently evil, and we will destroy them if they ever dare to do what Israel has already done.

If that's what you're saying, it speaks for itself. I won't say what it is. You wouldn't like it.

Iranians, Syrians, and North Koreans don't like it. No surprise to me. They are the ones under the Amerian-Israeli bombsight, and they know that they are human beings like the rest of us, and due the same degree of human dignity.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 10:17 PM

"okay for Israel to illegally and clandestinely commit nuclear proliferation and get away with it...but it's not okay for Iran, North Korea, or Syria or anyone else to do it"


LH, you have missed a very significant point.

Israel LEGALLY developed its nuclear devices- ISRAEL DID NOT SIGN the NPT.

The other countries you mention DID sign ( though I am not sure about N. Korea) and got significant help in their civilian nuclear power programs because of that. ISRAEL did not, and has NOT signed the NPT.

Anyone without nuclear weapons who signs the NPT gives up the right to develop nuclear weapons, and agrees to the monitoring which both N. Korea and Iran have refused to allow. A clear violation of international law, like Canada exporting asbestos to SE asia.

Those powers that had nuclear weapons at the time they signed the NPT agreed NOT to supply the technology or certain materials to others. Should N. Korea have done so ( in Syria, for example) that makes them in violation of the NPT as well. ( IF they signed it.)

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 10:34 PM

http://www.npec-web.org/Frameset.asp?PageType=Single&PDFFile=20070509-Zarate-NPT-IAEA-PeacefulNuclear&PDFFolder=Essays

also,
"There are currently 189 states party to the treaty, five of which have nuclear weapons: the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, and the People's Republic of China."

"Only four nations are not signatories: India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea. India and Pakistan both possess and have openly tested nuclear bombs. Israel has had a policy of opacity regarding its own nuclear weapons program. North Korea ratified the treaty, violated it, and later withdrew."

"Countries that have signed the treaty as Non-Nuclear Weapons States and maintained that status have an unbroken record of not building nuclear weapons. However, North Korea violated [6] and later withdrew from the NPT and tested a nuclear device, Iran has been accused of seeking to develop a nuclear weapons capability, and Libya pursued a clandestine nuclear weapons program before abandoning it in December 2003. "


Article I:[7] Each nuclear-weapons state (NWS) undertakes not to transfer, to any recipient, nuclear weapons, or other nuclear explosive devices, and not to assist any non-nuclear weapon state to manufacture or acquire such weapons or devices.

Article II: Each non-NWS party undertakes not to receive, from any source, nuclear weapons, or other nuclear explosive devices; not to manufacture or acquire such weapons or devices; and not to receive any assistance in their manufacture.

Article III: Each non-NWS party undertakes to conclude an agreement with the IAEA for the application of its safeguards to all nuclear material in all of the state's peaceful nuclear activities and to prevent diversion of such material to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.

Article IV: 1. Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with Articles I and II of this Treaty.

2. All the Parties to the Treaty undertake to facilitate, and have the right to participate in, the fullest possible exchange of equipment, materials and scientific and technological information for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Parties to the Treaty in a position to do so shall also co-operate in contributing alone or together with other States or international organizations to the further development of the applications of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, especially in the territories of non-nuclear-weapon States Party to the Treaty, with due consideration for the needs of the developing areas of the world.

Article VI. The states undertake to pursue "negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament", and towards a "Treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control".

Article X. Establishes the right to withdraw from the Treaty giving 3 months' notice. It also establishes the duration of the Treaty (25 years before 1995 Extension Initiative).


Three states—India, Pakistan, and Israel—have declined to sign the treaty. India and Pakistan are confirmed nuclear powers, and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has made a statement that some interpret as tacitly admitting that Israel possesses nuclear weapons[11], breaking a long-standing policy of official denial, though it is not known to have conducted tests (see List of countries with nuclear weapons). These countries argue that the NPT creates a club of "nuclear haves" and a larger group of "nuclear have-nots" by restricting the legal possession of nuclear weapons to those states that tested them before 1967, but the treaty never explains on what ethical grounds such a distinction is valid.

India and Pakistan have publicly announced possession of nuclear weapons and have detonated nuclear devices in tests, India having first done so in 1974 and Pakistan following suit in 1998 in response to another Indian test. India is estimated to have enough fissile material for more than 150 warheads. Pakistan reportedly has 60. India is one of the few countries to have a no first use policy, a pledge not to use nuclear weapons unless first attacked by an adversary using nuclear weapons. The main reason quoted by India for not signing NPT and for possessing nuclear weapons is that China, with which it has fought war in 1962 and has long standing border dispute, is one of the "nuclear haves".

According to leaked intelligence, Israel has been developing nuclear weapons at its Dimona site in the Negev since 1958, and many nonproliferation analysts like David Albright estimate that Israel may have stockpiled between 100 to 200 warheads using the plutonium reprocessed from Dimona. The Israeli government refuses to confirm or deny possession of nuclear weapons, although this is now regarded as an open secret after Israeli low level nuclear technician Mordechai Vanunu—later apprehended and jailed by Israel—revealed the program to the British Sunday Times in 1986.



from Wikipedia...



NOTE:
"Israel has been developing nuclear weapons at its Dimona site in the Negev since 1958"

"The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, also Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT or NNPT) is an international treaty to limit the spread of nuclear weapons, opened for signature on July 1, 1968. "


So, Israel is supossedly guilty of violating a treaty IT DID NOT SIGN by its efforts starting 10 years BEFORE the treaty existed????

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 10:35 PM

"If they are doing it indeed to build nuclear weapons, I don't regard the mere building of weapons as a crime."


But the NPT DOES consider it to be a violation.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 11:02 PM

LH,

You state:
"Of course the USA has treaty obligations to protect Israel if Israel is attacked. I have no argument with that."

Since a SINGLE nuclear bomb could destroy a majority of Israel's industry and population, you seem to imply that you accept the idea that, after Israel is so severely damaged, the US is within it's rights to inflict the same level of damage on the nation that is responsible. As someone who does NOT want to see a global thermonuclear war, I would rather that we take steps BEFORE that is neccesary, and prevent the initial destruction if possible. Since a LARGE number of the casualties in any nuclear attack on Israel would be Palestinian Arabs, both within Israel and in the surrounding region, perhaps it is those who want Israel to be bombed BEFORE it can take steps to defend itself who feel that the Arabs are not quite human enough to worry about.

If that's what YOU are saying, it speaks for itself.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Oct 07 - 02:06 PM

BB, I am opposed to ALL people using nuclear weapons on one another. 100% opposed to it. EVER. From here till eternity. I would be much in favor of doing away with all nuclear weapons...if those who had them would only be willing to give them up. They're not.

Clear?

I make no differences between dead Israelis, dead Iranians, dead Syrians, and dead Americans...or dead Canadians. They all have equal value. I have no desire to extract "an eye for an eye" from anyone. They are all equally entitled to live happy lives without fear, and their unnecessary deaths would all be equally unfortunate, as far as I'm concerned.

I think you're emotionally favoring Israeli lives over Arab and Iranian lives when it comes right down to it, I think that is crystal clear, and that's all I'm objecting to. It's a double standard, morally speaking. It's unacceptable to me, and it's morally repugnant.

Tell me honestly that you do not regret the death of 1,000 Iranians or North Koreans or Syrians any less than you regret the death of 1,000 Israelis or Americans. Tell me that, and we have nothing to disagree about in this matter.

I think we would both prefer an end to nuclear proliferation. I know I would.

I don't really give a damn about the technical legalities of who signed the NPT or not...I regard that as legal BS and chicanery...the kind of fancy stuff lawyers pull in court, intended to obscure responsibility for certain parties...given the fact that Israel did not sign the NPT, but that in the real world that whe have to live in Israel is just as responsible as anyone else when it comes to having a nuclear arsenal and having the sense and decency not to use it violently on someone ELSE.

No one is "God's Chosen" set apart from others, BB. No one gets an exemption from moral responsibility. No one gets to do things with impunity that others are not allowed to do, such as build a secret nuclear arsenal and pretend it doesn't exist when everyone knows it does. No one's life is worth more, by virtue of his nationality or culture, than is another person's life.

And the size of his country, whether large or small, does not permit him such moral exceptions.

The Israelis have proven again and again since 1948 that they are fully capable of defeating Arab armies with their elite conventional forces. They do not need atomic bombs, and their having them is just as dangerous as anyone else having them. They should have been obliged to sign the NPT in the first place. That they were not obliged to do so is in itself indicative of gross moral inconsistency and irresponsibility on the part of whoever was in charge of the process (probably the USA, I would assume).

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Oct 07 - 02:38 PM

LH,
"BB, I am opposed to ALL people using nuclear weapons on one another. 100% opposed to it. EVER. From here till eternity. I would be much in favor of doing away with all nuclear weapons...if those who had them would only be willing to give them up. They're not."

I am opposed to anyone using nuclear weapons. I am also opposed to the use, by anyone, of other WMD. The principle of MAD ( Mutually Assured Destruction) is one that I consider fatally flawed in that it presumes that BOTH sides are sane, or will act sanely.

Thus I feel that the elimination of illegal WMD programs, such as in Iraq, Iran, and N. Korea, who have shown to NOT abide by international law and treaties, IS a morally correct decision, even when human lives ( ON BOTH SIDES) are lost. The number that would be lost if the programs were allowed to continue to completion are far greater, and potentially include the entire human race.

"I make no differences between dead Israelis, dead Iranians, dead Syrians, and dead Americans...or dead Canadians. They all have equal value. I have no desire to extract "an eye for an eye" from anyone. They are all equally entitled to live happy lives without fear, and their unnecessary deaths would all be equally unfortunate, as far as I'm concerned."

I agree. When countries such as Syria, Iran, and N. Korea cease to act in ways that threaten the existance of other nations, there will be no need for anyone to be killed: But as long as those governments insist on developing direct threats to other nations and NOT demonstrate the willingness to act according to international law and treaties, they will place both others and their own people in danger.


"I think you're emotionally favoring Israeli lives over Arab and Iranian lives when it comes right down to it, I think that is crystal clear, and that's all I'm objecting to. It's a double standard, morally speaking. It's unacceptable to me, and it's morally repugnant. "

I object to ANY country that attacks the civilians of other countries. It seems a double standard to object to Israel efforts to defend its population by attacking the launch sites of illegal area mass bombardment rockets, and NOT object to the attacks upon Israel's civilian ( both Moslem and Jewish) population. THAT is a double standard.

"Tell me honestly that you do not regret the death of 1,000 Iranians or North Koreans or Syrians any less than you regret the death of 1,000 Israelis or Americans. Tell me that, and we have nothing to disagree about in this matter."

I regret the death of ANY civilians by military action: Perhaps I regret the deaths of those who do nothing but exist to cause those deaths more than those who act in a military manner and hide behind civilians. Innocents SHOULD NOT be used as shields- the ones who do so are responsible for the deaths that result.

"I think we would both prefer an end to nuclear proliferation. I know I would."

If it were possible to remove WMD from the world, and insure they could not be developed, I would rejoice: BUT as a person with a BS in Physics, I know that there are too many people who could make one ( given the materials), and that the materials are too easy to obtain.

If we could just wipe out the knowledge that enables people to kill each other so easily...

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Oct 07 - 03:00 PM

LH,
"the real world that whe have to live in Israel is just as responsible as anyone else when it comes to having a nuclear arsenal and having the sense and decency not to use it violently on someone ELSE."


It seems to me that Israel HAS demonstrated that. In previous wars, even though the use of its nuclear weapons would have been more effective ( in terms of Israeli lives) than conventional forces, Israel has NOT used them. How many nations, whose very existance has been repeatedly threatened, have shown such restraint?

I believe that it has been made clear to ALL parties that the weapons that Israel has will not be used unless the existance of Israel and its people ( both Jewish and Moslem) is directly threatened. Can you say the same about Syria or Iran? Or Iraq, who DID use WMD against its OWN population????

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Oct 07 - 03:06 PM

"The USA is the one playing the role of pre-WWII Germany at the present time, BB. It's a great power making up patently phony excuses to launch first strikes on minor powers, just as Germany did. It's accusing others of its own devious intentions and its own crimes, just like Germany did." - Little Hawk

Totally ridiculous. Wargaming again LH?.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Oct 07 - 06:18 PM

Well then, I think, BB, that we agree on most of the moral essentials. ;-) We just don't agree on how to go about expressing our opinions about them. I am bothered by what I think are double standards which give Israel an unfair break. You are bothered by what you think are double standards which give enemies of Israel an unfair break. You see Israel largely in terms of being a heroic "victim". I see Israel largely in terms of being an arrogant regional aggressor. More talk by both of us will do nothing to undo that conundrum, I'm afraid. No chance. It's a question of individual perception, and no amount of quoted info or logical blather about it will resolve our differing perceptions. It'll just consume a lot of keystrokes to no useful purpose.

As for Teribus, he and I will never agree about much of anything and it doesn't matter anyway.

Life will go on. Meaningless verbal victories will be vainly claimed by an assortment of restless, resentful minds which have apparently nothing better to do with their spare time than to pester each other at long distance via their computer keyboards.

If there is a God, I'm sure he feels great compassion for each of us... ;-)

By all means, BB, continue delivering your daily news bulletins, and I will drop in now and then and comment when I simply can't resist succumbing to the nagging temptation.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Oct 07 - 06:32 PM

Well, I've said it before and I'll say it again... If I am the leader of a country without a nuclear weapon and there is another country with 'um that keeps threatening me, it is my ***responsibility*** to try everything I can do to level the playing field...

Martial Arts, 001 (non credit, remedial)...

Also Military Scinece 001 (non credit, remedial)...

Also Common Friggin' Sense 001 (non credit, remedial)...

Screw NPT's... If you are gettin' ready to whack me I'm gonna be lookin' 'round fir a good stick myself...

What we have is a situation where a punk, who used his daddy's influence to hide from having to learn about "real war", who now is going thru some psycological problems and, as a consequence, the rest of the world is suffering along with him...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Nov 07 - 05:52 PM

Warheads for peacefulIran Hands IAEA Nuclear Blueprints


Tuesday, November 13, 2007 5:04:36 PM
By GEORGE JAHN

Iran has met a key demand of the U.N. nuclear agency, handing over long-sought blueprints showing how to mold uranium metal into the shape of warheads, diplomats said Tuesday.

Iran's decision to release the documents, which were seen by U.N. inspectors two years ago, was seen as a concession designed to head off the threat of new U.N. sanctions.

But the diplomats said Tehran has failed to meet other requests made by the International Atomic Energy Agency in its attempts to end nearly two decades of nuclear secrecy on the part of Iran.

The diplomats spoke to The Associated Press as IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei put the finishing touches on his latest report to his agency's 35-nation board of governors for consideration next week. While ElBaradei is expected to say that Iran has improved its cooperation with his agency's probe, the findings are unlikely to deter the United States, France and Britain from pushing for a third set of U.N. sanctions.

The agency has been seeking possession of the blueprints since 2005, when it stumbled upon them among a batch of other documents during its examination of suspect Iranian nuclear activities. While agency inspectors had been allowed to examine them in the country, Tehran had up to now refused to let the IAEA have a copy for closer perusal.

Diplomats accredited to the agency, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were divulging confidential information, said the drawings were hand-carried by Mohammad Saeedi, deputy director of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization and handed over last week in Vienna to Oli Heinonen, an ElBaradei deputy in charge of the Iran investigations.

Iran maintains it was given the papers without asking for them during its black market purchases of nuclear equipment decades ago that now serve as the backbone of its program to enrich uranium -- a process that can generate both power or create the fissile core of nuclear warheads. Iran's refusal to suspend enrichment has been the main trigger for both existing U.N. sanctions and the threat of new ones.

Both the IAEA and other experts have categorized the instructions outlined in the blueprints as having no value outside of a nuclear weapons program.

While ElBaradei's report is likely to mention the Iranian concession on the drawings and other progress made in clearing up ambiguities in Iran's nuclear activities, it was unclear whether it would also detail examples of what the diplomats said were continued Iranian stonewalling.

Senior IAEA officials were refused interviews with at least two top Iranian nuclear officials suspected of possible involvement in a weapons program, they said. One was the leader of a physics laboratory at Lavizan, outside Tehran, which was razed before the agency had a chance to investigate activities there. The other was in charge of developing Iran's centrifuges, used to enrich uranium.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Nickhere
Date: 16 Nov 07 - 02:05 PM

BBruce: "Thus I feel that the elimination of illegal WMD programs, such as in Iraq, Iran, and N. Korea, who have shown to NOT abide by international law and treaties, IS a morally correct decision, even when human lives ( ON BOTH SIDES) are lost. The number that would be lost if the programs were allowed to continue to completion are far greater, and potentially include the entire human race"

Oh dear, here we go again. Let's not forget that the USA and UK violated international law when it went ahead and invaded Iraq anyway in the absence of a UN mandate, while Israel has ignored countless UN resolutions etc., No-one's morally above the law, but when the laws are made and broken by anyone to suit themselves, then no-one's under any obligation to keep them. It becomes a vicious circle.

Iran is in no breach of the NPT - its nuclear programme is for civilian purposes, they say and there is no definite evidence to the contrary, despiet the illegbal sanctions that have been placed on it. That's not to say the Iranians don't intend to develop nuclear weapons (and with all the belligerence and posturing in today's world they'd be both mad and not mad not to, if you can figure that). Yet unproven intention is no case for punishment or sanction. If it were so, the Iranians could with moral and legal impunity attack israel at any time for having nucelar weapons which they MIGHT sometime use against Iran, or the US for openly having them and considering using them against Iran (even depleted uranium shells or mini-nuclear bunker busters). Moreover, they'd only be following GW Bush's doctrine of 'pre-emptive strike'.

Hopefully sanity will prevail, but everyone needs to back up a step or two. The USA and other nuclear powers need to have a re-think of the nucelar policy: it's a case of don't do as i do, but as I say. The USA is the ONLY country to have actually used nuclear weapons - they killed over 250,000 CIVILIANS with them. So, while they might be talking from experience, they have no moral right to lecture others. I'm sure if Iran had been the first to use them, it would now be used as a stick to beat it with.

The NPT? Don't make me laugh! A concocted and shambolic thing if ever there was one. The Big 5 had nuclear weapons, now they needed a mechanism to make sure no-one else got them. Despite that a few more countries joined the club, realising a few nuclear weapons got you taken a lot more seriously. A real NPT would be the Big 5 (and the others) all shwoing a bit of real concern by demolishing ALL their own stockpiles before lecturing anyone else - or admitting the only reason they are able to make such ridiculous demands is partly due to their nuclear capability in the first place.

BTW - i don't want to see nuclear war either, just in case anyone got the worng idea there for a minute.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Nickhere
Date: 16 Nov 07 - 02:18 PM

BBruce: "Thus I feel that the elimination of illegal WMD programs, such as in Iraq, Iran, and N. Korea, who have shown to NOT abide by international law and treaties, IS a morally correct decision, even when human lives ( ON BOTH SIDES) are lost"

I think we can see from the Iraqi experience that the number lost on the 'other' side (ie, Iranian) will be far higher than US / Uk casualties. How many soldiers has the US lost in Iraq? 4,000? How many in the Twin Towers? 3,000? Total = 7,000. Now multiply that by almost 100 (!) and you get the scale of Iraqi deaths since the US invaded in 2003. Around 700,000 dead in 4 years. The Iraqis are clearly coming off worst, and not surprisingly, since the US has vastly superior resources - arms, vehicles, training, money. It's not a fair fight by any means, and nor will it be in Iran. And once again it will be civilians - who are alive at the moment - who will suffer and die most in any invasion of Iran. That's men, women and children, in plain English. Now, if you think 100 times Iranian casulaties are preferable to 1/100th the number of US casualties, then LH's point stands: you think US llives are worth more than Iranian lives, and have created a sliding scale of humanity in your mind.

Yes, it's better no-one developed, or had such awful weapons, but despite all their experience in Iraq, some Americans persist in believing in the might of force argument, in the beleif that you can just send in the cavalry, cut out the tumour and everything will be right again, the balance restored.
Certainly it will be far more difficult to difuse the potential for aggression now that the Us has invaded Iraq and has its troops all over the Middle East - as conquerors / occupiers in Afgahnistan and iraq, and as sentries in Saudi Arabia. How do you think this looks to the average Arab? Who do you think looks like the exapansionist aggressor? What would ordinary US folk do if Iran was massing its armies along the Mexican border, had invaded and occupied Canada and was threatening war on the US?? Come on lad, get real.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Nov 07 - 03:15 PM

"Iran is in no breach of the NPT "

False statement. The UN has declared Iran to be in violation.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Nov 07 - 03:25 PM

Nickhere,
Re 16 Nov 07 - 02:18 PM , OU are not being fair. In the case of a nuclear war, 40 million to 1.6 BILLION would be killed, and almost all would be civilian. THAT is the point I was trying to make when I stated "Thus I feel that the elimination of illegal WMD programs, such as in Iraq, Iran, and N. Korea, who have shown to NOT abide by international law and treaties, IS a morally correct decision, even when human lives ( ON BOTH SIDES) are lost"

I do not consider that the death of thousands should be accepted casually: BUT if there are those who threaten to kill millions, and have the real capability to do so, I would not say to let them proceed because thousands might die in stopping them.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Nov 07 - 05:40 AM

Ah Nickhere, you seem to highly qualified to answer the following:

Can any Iranian apologist explain the following regarding Iran's "peaceful" nuclear programme:

a) why the uranium enrichment plants were built in secret.

b) why the type of centrifuges they have opted for enriches uranium to weapons grade.

c) why the number of of those centrifuges planned matches the numbers required for rapid cascade enrichment to weapons grade material.

d) why they had blue-prints for a nuclear warhead.

e) why when after the IAEA requested surrender of that blue-print it took the Iranians over two years to hand it over having first denied its existence.

As for the NPT being a joke, international disarmament wrt nuclear weapons was subject to amazing progress up to the point that first India then Pakistan tested their nuclear weapons. One of the big 5 as you term them still continues to disarm - the UK.

By the bye, Nickhere, there is no such thing as a "mini-nuclear bunker buster", they trialed an unarmed one, they have immense problems with the casing for such a weapon with a nuclear warhead. Funding for further research was subsequently withheld - that is a matter of record.

700,000 Iraqi dead in 4 years, killed by the US armed forces? Some form of verification and substantiation for those figures would be nice. If Hopkins or ORB is mentioned also please make it perfectly clear to those reading this that the figures presented by both are not factual, they are estimates, estimates vehmently dismissed as ridiculous by others undertaking exactly the same work such as the Iraqi Ministry of Health, Iraqi Interior Ministry and IBC.org.

I look forward to reading your answers. But somehow I think I may be waiting for some time.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Nickhere
Date: 17 Nov 07 - 09:01 PM

No problem Teribus - I am still waiting for you to tell me what you think to be the most effective form of protest from several months ago....

700,000 dead in Iraq - Lancet etc., As for the Iraqi govt...well, well. They're would try and say things were better than they were, downplay the bad situation. Plus they are there by grace of the US neo-cons who decided what kind of Govt Iraq would have (a pro-US one - can you imagine any Islamic 'extremist' candidates being given much of a chance to go for the running, much less being accepted if elected?). No, not all killed by US forces, but answer me this...how many of the dead might still be alive if the US HADN't inavded??

The US talked of 'nuking' Afghanistan back in 2001, and not just at street level. As I said, they are still the ONLY country in the world to have actually used them.

The NPT? So why doesn't the USA (for a start) just scrap all its missiles? Then there'd be a few thousand less of them in the world. Instead, they scrapped lost of old ones, but the big arms companies are still turning out new, improved ones.

Is Iran hoping to make a bomb? Quite possibly. But who's to balme for that? As I said, if everyone backed up a step or two, the situation might be resolved a lot sooner. Instead, the US keeps ratcheting up the pressure and the stakes almost as if was hoping to goad Iran into a fight. Can YOU answer my question about what Americans would do if Iranian troops were massed along its borders, talking openly about making 'military strikes' into the US? Talking about making strikes on the US' missile sites as a pre-emptive strike, in case Americans ever thought of talking about 'nuking' Afghanistan or any other countrt that wouldn't do what it wanted? Hasn't American openly talked about killing millions - about turning Afghanistan into a 'parking lot'. Come off it! A few words come to mind - kettle, pot, black.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Nickhere
Date: 17 Nov 07 - 09:04 PM

Teribus: "By the bye, Nickhere, there is no such thing as a "mini-nuclear bunker buster", they trialed an unarmed one, they have immense problems with the casing for such a weapon with a nuclear warhead"

I'm glad to hear it. Long may it continue thus. The money would be better put into health care or victims of natural disasters.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Nov 07 - 06:47 AM

I thought that I did answer your question a long time ago about what I thought to be the most effective form of protest - take a leaf out of Ghandi's book - peaceful but total non co-operation, civil disobedience.

I take it Nickhere that you personally have never bothered to read the Lancet article or the John Hopkins Report.

I say that Nickhere because you along with others on this Forum repeatedly refer to "Around 700,000 dead in 4 years" as though they were fact and then quote as source, as you have done in one of your last posts simply "Lancet". Now not even the authors of the John Hopkins Report, or the editors of the Lancet in their introduction to that Report have EVER stated the number of dead, because they cannot, because the work and findings are estimates, they are not factual.

Now exactly why should an anti-war organisation like Iraq Body Count play down the figures Nickhere (Part of a grand conspiracy no doubt). Their analysis of the Hopkins work makes good reading and imparts some logical common sense to the subject.

On surmising how many Iraqis would have died in Iraq had the US not acted to remove Saddam in March 2003, I would estimate going on the lowest of Saddam's averages over his 24 year reign of terror in Iraq about 250,000, taking his highest it would be around 411,000. But there again if the US had not removed Saddam from power in March 2003, I would also imagine that by now that sanctions would have been lifted years ago, Saddam would have had unrestricted access to rearm, and by now he would be engaged in a second war with Iran, because believe me there would be no way in creation that Saddam Hussein would sit back and let Iran become nuclear capable.

By all means let the US scrap all its nuclear weapons (Magician waves wand - whoosh - The US's nuclear weapons disappear) Now is the world any safer? What have all the others done? And why?

While you are perfectly correct in stating that the US is the only country ever to have used an atomic weapon in anger during World War II, you must acknowledge they are not the only country to have detonated atomic or nuclear weapons in the earths atmosphere. Do you know how many atom bombs have been exploded in the earths atmosphere Nickhere? You'd be surprised at the number, yet on this Forum people such as yourself chatter on about the next bomb to drop will signal the end of the planet - it won't.

Now Nickhere you were going to explain the following to us - "No problem" remember, for some reason you failed to address any of the points raised:

a) why the uranium enrichment plants were built in secret.

b) why the type of centrifuges they have opted for enriches uranium to weapons grade.

c) why the number of of those centrifuges planned matches the numbers required for rapid cascade enrichment to weapons grade material.

d) why they had blue-prints for a nuclear warhead.

e) why when after the IAEA requested surrender of that blue-print it took the Iranians over two years to hand it over having first denied its existence.

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

All fair points, Teribus.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

Wickipaedia

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

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

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



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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Nickhere:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now this rather mystified me:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anyway:

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

This is a bit of a spinner, innit?

A

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

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

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

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

Have a read. This article explains alot.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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


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

Man.


A

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Missiles are hardly a valid example to use.

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

False statement, according to the IAEA.

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From the Washington Post:

How Famine Changed N. Korea

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


A

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

Does the Bush Administration Want War or Peace?



A

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

Excellent talk about Iran here...

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

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

Washington Post

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

oh- 800

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

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

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

Washington Post:

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I was wrong.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Washington Post:

The Right Path With N. Korea

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

updated 1 hour, 51 minutes ago


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





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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wotta headache, eh?

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


A

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

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

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

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

Doobie, doobie, do....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What happened then Little Hawk?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh, piffle.

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

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

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

Oh, piffle.

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

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

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

Washington Post

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LH,

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

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


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


Have you read

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 28 May 08 - 01:21 PM

Nice neutral source....


And several of the claims ( re the UN and it's reports) are false.

So when will Iran comply with the UN and cease it's illegal activities?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 May 08 - 02:04 PM

When will Washington cease its illegal activities, BB? Its whole war in Iraq is illegal, and was so right from the start. Its continued occupation of Iraq is illegal. Its torturing of prisoners is illegal. Its offshore prison facilities in Guantanamo and elsewhere are illegal.

You just don't get it, BB. You're living in the current spiritual counterpart to Hitler's Germany...only still without the concentration camps (so far) or the attacks on Jews or some other such scapegoat...a nation which attacks whomever it pleases, whenever it pleases, for no reason other than that it pleases, and without any genuine provocation or justification...and legality be damned.

None of this has anything to do with legality, it has to do with the exercise of naked power by the Superpower.

I wonder, assuming Bush's alleged attack plan goes ahead this summer, what will happen afterward in regards to the American election and the next administration? Well, we'll have to wait and see. Hopefully this alleged attack will not happen at all. If it does, it will not be good for anyone.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 28 May 08 - 03:39 PM

No Little Hawk, what you tried to do is selectively present past history to support your own extremely bigotted and biased view of the United States of America, and why? Because you couldn't stand your corner in an arguement with some kids from the US when you moved down there - hence your "I'm always for the underdog. Immaterial if they happen to be in the right or in the wrong".

But if you are going to quote historical examples at least get the bloody details right in both fact and perspective.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 28 May 08 - 04:02 PM

Sorry, LH, but when the UN refuses to act in cases such as Cambodia ( 2 million killed), Rwanda ( 800,000 killed), Bosnia, Darfur, Burma, etc, IMO the acts of an "Imperial" power have greater moral value than the "legal" acceptance of slaughter. After all, what Hitler did to the Jews WAS legal, and would be so now if he had one.

IMO, the actions that the US has NOT done ( add Armenia to the above list) will be regretted far more than what we have done.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 May 08 - 04:10 PM

No, Teribus, I merely selected a few notable examples out of many, many notable examples of past imperialism. Period. I did not pick them particularly to reference the USA. After all, I included the Soviets and the French, didn't I? The USA is doing very well by itself (in partnership with the UK) and needs no help from me in ditinguishing it as the world's most aggressive and dangerous presently dominating imperialist power...the one that launches unprovoked invasions over spurious justifications.

You added a few more examples of past aggressive imperialism like Genghis Khan, etc. Great. I agree 100% with your examples. I'm sure that we could waste a great deal of further time naming ALL the additional examples of past imperialism that neither one of us has yet quoted. How about the Aztecs? Or the Iroquois? Or the Egyptians? Or the Belgians? Or the Portuguese? Or the Dutch? Or the Sassanids? Or the Magyars? Or the Moors? Or the ancient Israelites when they left Sinai and went into "the promised land"? Or the Babylonians? Or the Assyrians? Really, one can go on forever with that sort of thing.

My concern is strictly with the presently ruling imperial order....which is a coalition of the USA/UK/Canada/Australia (the last 2 are just junior partners, mind you, but they're definitely part of it).

You are a UK loyalist, and you can't believe that your guys could be in the wrong this time. (shrug) Why should that surprise me? You're a typical soldier in that respect. There's nothing unusual about it, and I don't expect anything to change your loyalist attitude one iota.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 May 08 - 04:27 PM

Well, BB, anything is technically legal within a given society if its lawmakers say it is, right? The question is, is it legal elsewhere, beyond their reach? What Germany was doing to the Jews (and other victims of Nazi policy) was not legal elsewhere, beyond the reach of Nazi control. Not in the least! What the USA has been doing to Iraq and to its prisoners in Guantanamo and other places is not legal elsewhere either. It is violation of international law. It's also violation of the principles embodied in your own Constitution.

It will eventually become a matter for war crimes trials if, as Germany did, the USA loses a great war. If not, well then the USA will escape its responsibilities in that regard, because only the losers of great wars pay for their crimes. The winners walk away scot free.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 05:04 PM

Iran: Time running out over nuke issue

Story Highlights
Iran's parliament speaker warns of countries making moves on Iran

Ali Larijani says any provocation would would "cost them heavily"

Larijani slams EU sanctions against Iran

   
(CNN) -- Iran's powerful speaker of parliament warned other countries Wednesday not to provoke Iran and cautioned against moves that would "cost them heavily."

Ali Larijani also recommended that Western nations consider the recent comments from U.N. nuclear watchdog chief Mohamed ElBaradei, who said Saturday that a strike on Iran would turn the Middle East into a "ball of fire."

"We advise you to take Mr. ElBaradei's warnings seriously and not to be after provoking Iran. In that case, you will face our predestined action, and returning to interaction will become impossible for you," Larijani said in parliament in Tehran.

The comments come amid concern in the West that Iran is intent on developing nuclear weapons. Iran insists that it wants to pursue nuclear power for energy purposes.

Israel also has warned about Iran's nuclear aspirations and in recent days conducted a large-scale military exercise in the Mediterranean. One U.S. military official said the exercise was in part a message to Iran that Israel has the capability to attack its nuclear program.

ElBaradei indicated that any strike would make Iran less willing to work with the West over its nuclear enrichment program.

At present, Larijani said Wednesday, "a little time was left for having interaction with Iran" regarding the program, according to Iran's Islamic Republic News Agency.

But Larijani, once Iran's chief nuclear envoy, slammed the European Union for its new sanctions against Iran, strictures issued even as the EU plans talks with Iran over an incentives package it hopes would convince Iran that it should halt uranium enrichment.

The EU sanctions adopted Monday include an asset freeze on Iran's Bank Melli and visa bans on some senior officials.

"If you are going to negotiate with Iran over the package of proposals, then why have you chosen confrontation before that?" Larijani asked.

He also issued a warning to the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and Germany, which have been engaged in the Iranian nuclear issue.

"If we feel that you are making decisions unilaterally and are using negotiations as an instrument to justify your illegal actions, be certain that the process will change," he said. "This is the path you have chosen to step in, and the responsibility of consequences will be yours."

IRNA quoted him as warning other countries against moves that would "cost them heavily."

"Do not add to the cost you should pay with making wrong assessments," Larijani was quoted as saying.

Iranian and Western analysts believe that an Israeli strike against Iran is not possible without American approval and logistical assistance. Iranians have said they would hold the United States responsible for any attacks by Israel.

Also Wednesday, an Iranian military official issued a warning against any provocative actions. The United States has said it wants to deal with the Iranian nuclear issue diplomatically but has left all options on the table.

Maj. Gen. Seyed Mohammad Hejazi, deputy commander of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, "suggested" that American leaders "be careful lest they face a new catastrophe."

"Our last word is that if you want to head toward Iran, be sure to bring with you a walking stick and a pair of artificial legs, because if you do come to Iran, you will no longer have legs to go back home with," Hejazi said.

The Israeli military, responding to questions about this week's military exercise, said its air force regularly trains for various missions so it will be able to confront and meet the challenges posed by the threats facing Israel.

In 1981, Israel attacked and destroyed the Osirak nuclear facility in Iraq, and in September it attacked a target in Syria that the United States believes was a nuclear reactor.

Israel and Iran long have been arch-enemies. Israel has long felt threatened by Iran's hard-line Islamic regime, and the Islamic Republic rails against the very existence of the Jewish state. The Iranian regime for years has criticized Israel's policies in the Palestinian territories.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 07:12 PM

Iran: time running out for the next unilaterally chosen and unprovoked American war of aggression, launched to attack someone else on the feeble and illegal excuse that that someone else might someday attack someone else...

The self-defence technique of Lapp-Goch, in other words, once advertised as a joke by National Lampoon, but based on solid past precedents set by Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan and Fascist Italy in WWII, now embraced by Britain and America to SAVE the world! Praise the Lord!

;-)

And for the umpteenth time.....it's LIECHTENSTEIN!!! Keep your eyes on "the Sleeping Croissant"!

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 10:05 AM

Well taking a look at the list presented to GWB by the intelligence agencies of the United States of America way back in December 2001 they had pegged Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Libya, Syria. Out of that lot Iraq no longer poses any threat, neither does North Korea or Libya who both voluntarily abandoned their nuclear weapons programmes. Syria is currently under investigation, but it is believed that that problem was scotched by Israeli intervention. That only leaves Iran, and the spotlight of the world has them firmly fixed in its beam. 80% outright success rate, not bad considering, well done the USA.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 11:30 AM

Washington Post:


Coalition Of the Ineffectual

By Richard Perle
Thursday, June 26, 2008; Page A19

"A successful multilateral coalition" is how Condoleezza Rice described those countries, "united in confronting Iran," on which the administration's Iran policy critically depends.

"A complete failure" is Barack Obama's description of the Bush administration's Iran policy.

They are both right. The secretary of state, whose born-again multilateralism has redeemed her standing at the State Department and among our allies, can rightly claim to have forged a coalition on Iran. But Obama (whose enthusiasm for multilateralism is at least as fervent) can rightly claim that Rice's coalition has failed to slow, much less halt, Iran's unrelenting nuclear weapons program or diminish its support for terrorist groups.

The coalition that Rice thinks a success, and Obama a failure, is, at best, a "do nothing decisive" group, with at least half its members -- Germany, Russia and China -- maneuvering for self-serving advantage in their dealings with the mullahs in Iran. Russia continues to assist Iran's nuclear program while selling Iran advanced weapons. China is prowling for oil deals and selling advanced weapons. German businessmen fill the lobbies of Iranian hotels (one can't be sure what they're selling). The Russians and the Chinese have made it clear that they will not support sanctions that are severe enough to exert any real influence, and while Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, has been outspoken in her disparagement of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, her words -- like our president's -- fly up, while her (and his) government's thoughts remain below.


For their part, the Iranians, undeterred by Rice's "successful multilateral coalition," are relentlessly building a nuclear weapons program while supporting terrorism and subversion in Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria and Israel. The mullahs took only scornful notice of President Bush's appeals to an even larger coalition, "the world," when he said, on May 18, "To allow the world's leading sponsor of terror to gain the world's deadliest weapon would be an unforgivable betrayal of future generations. For the sake of peace, the world must not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon." But allow it does.

There are lessons here. Soon after taking office, President Bush rejected several previously negotiated international agreements, including the Kyoto treaty, the treaty establishing the International Criminal Court, a protocol to the biological weapons convention and, in 2002, the treaty banning ballistic missile defenses. The reaction was angry and immediate: The United States, critics charged, had abandoned the multilateralism of the Clinton years for a high-handed "unilateral" approach that alienated our allies and undermined the alliances on which our security was said to depend.

This idea became a centerpiece of John Kerry's presidential campaign. He called for "a bold, progressive internationalism that stands in stark contrast to the too often belligerent and myopic unilateralism of the Bush administration," the conventional wisdom echoed by countless politicians, commentators and opinion polls these past seven and a half years. We are certain to hear more of the same in this year's presidential election.

Most often, "multilateral" has referred to policies that were either established in multilateral agreements or blessed by the United Nations, our European allies or both. Left implicit among those preaching multilateralism was the idea that a multilateral solution was always available, if only the administration had been willing to adopt it. It has often been said, wrongly, that the Bush administration opposed working with allies and preferred to go it alone. But a preference for going it alone never was the problem.

The problem, rather, is a dangerous confusion between ends and means, and it is a confusion shared by Condi Rice and Barack Obama. Coalitions, even successful multilateral ones, are instruments, tools, means to an end. They are important and useful, sometimes essential, but they are not, and must not be seen as, ends in themselves. Confusion on this point can lead to claims of success when failure is staring you in the face.

How else should we judge progress as we seek to end Iran's drive for nuclear weapons and its support for terrorism? We have a multilateral coalition. It is "united." But it has not, and almost certainly will not, do the thing for which it has arduously been put together.

Building multilateral coalitions entails compromise: to entice countries to join, to keep them on board, to order priorities, to achieve consensus on an action plan. Sometimes the compromises are worth it because the coalition goes on to achieve an objective that we could not possibly have achieved alone. Sometimes they are not, as when members are unwilling or unable to take effective measures and our own freedom of action is encumbered -- or worse, when satisfaction at having created a multilateral coalition becomes a substitute for achieving our objective. That is the case as the united multilateral coalition "confronts" Iran.

One can argue whether we alone can prevent an "unforgivable betrayal of future generations," as President Bush has put it. But the way to develop strategy for doing that begins by recognizing that the multilateral approach is failing. Seven and a half years after denouncing Iran's nuclear weapons program, a hapless president and his coalition can only look on while the Iranians rush to the finish line.

Art for art's sake is beautiful. Multilateralism for its own sake is not.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Jul 08 - 12:47 PM

Iranian president says no war with US, Israel

By VIJAY JOSHI, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 39 minutes ago



KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Tuesday that he sees no possibility of a war between his country and the United States or Israel.

He also predicted Israel would collapse without Iranian action.

"I assure you that there won't be any war in the future," Ahmadinejad told a news conference during a visit to Malaysia for a summit of developing Muslim nations.

The Israelis "are a complex political group, but you should know this regime will be eventually destroyed and there is no need of any measure by Iranian people," he said when asked to comment on whether he has called for the destruction of Israel.

Ahmadinejad's comments came a day after Iran's Revolutionary Guards said in a statement that the country was holding a military drill involving "missile squads" and warned that the country would retaliate against any military strike by targeting Tel Aviv and U.S. warships in the Gulf.

Iranian officials have been issuing a mix of conciliatory and bellicose statements in recent weeks about the possibility of a clash with the U.S. and Israel.

Ahmadinejad has in the past called for Israel's elimination. But his exact remarks have been disputed. Some translators say he called for Israel to be "wiped off the map," but others say that would be better translated as "vanish from the pages of time" — implying Israel would disappear on its own rather than be destroyed.

Ahmadinejad also said Tuesday that the next U.S. administration "would need at least 30 years in order to compensate, renovate and innovate the damages done by Mr. Bush."

"Today, the government of the United States is on the threshold of bankruptcy — from political to economic," Ahmadinejad said.

"The greatest threat in the Middle East and the whole world ... is the United States' intervention in other countries," Ahmadinejad said.

He urged Washington to heal its image by "relying on (the) basis of justice, humanitarian acts and respect for human beings."

For months, Ahmadinejad and other Iranian officials have said they don't believe the U.S. will attack because of its difficulties in Iraq, domestic worries and concerns over the fallout in the region. At the same time, Tehran has stepped up its warnings of retaliation if the Americans — or Israelis — do attack it, including threats to hit Israel and U.S. Gulf bases with missiles and stop oil traffic through the vital Gulf region.

The Web site of the elite Iranian force posted a statement late Monday quoting guard official Ali Shirazi as saying that Iran would retaliate against any military strike by targeting Tel Aviv and U.S. warships in the Gulf.

"The Zionist regime is pushing the White House to prepare for a military strike on Iran," Shirazi was quoted as saying.

"If such a stupidity is done by them, Tel Aviv and the U.S. naval fleet in the Persian Gulf will be the first targets which will be set on fire in Iran's crushing response."

Israeli government spokesman Mark Regev would not comment on Shirazi's warning other than to say "his words speak for themselves."

State Department spokesman Gonzalo Gallegos said such statements by Iran were "unfortunately...not out of the norm."

"We continue to stress our desire to resolve this issue diplomatically," Gallegos added.

Israel's military sent warplanes over the eastern Mediterranean for a large military exercise in June that U.S. officials described as a possible rehearsal for a strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, which the West fears are aimed at producing atomic weapons.

The U.S. Navy's Fifth Fleet, headquartered in the Persian Gulf nation of Bahrain, is responsible for patrolling the Gulf, the Suez Canal and parts of the Indian Ocean.

Shirazi is a cleric who represents supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in the guards' naval force. Khamenei has the final say over all state matters.

The Guards' Web site also announced that forces were carrying out a military drill involving "missile squads," but did not say where it was taking place.

Iran's guards and national army hold regular exercises two or three times a year, but the statement did not say whether this drill was one of them or if it was a special exercise.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Jul 08 - 09:01 AM

Iran test-fires missiles in Persian Gulf

By ALI AKBAR DAREINI, Associated Press Writer
27 minutes ago



TEHRAN, Iran - Iran test-fired nine long- and medium-range missiles Wednesday during war games that officials said aimed to show the country can retaliate against any U.S. and Israeli attack, state television reported.

Gen. Hossein Salami, the air force commander of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards, said the exercise would "demonstrate our resolve and might against enemies who in recent weeks have threatened Iran with harsh language," the TV report said.

Wednesday's war games were being conducted at the mouth of the Strait of Hormuz, a strategic waterway through which about 40 percent of the world's oil passes. Iran has threatened to shut down traffic in the strait if attacked.

The report showed footage of at least three missiles firing simultaneously, and said the barrage included a new version of the Shahab-3 missile, which officials have said has a range of 1,250 miles and is armed with a 1-ton conventional warhead.

That would put Israel, Turkey, the Arabian peninsula, Afghanistan and Pakistan within striking distance.

"Our hands are always on the trigger and our missiles are ready for launch," the official IRNA news agency quoted Salami as saying Wednesday.

The report comes less than a day after Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad dismissed fears that Israel and the United States could be preparing to attack his country, calling the possibility a "funny joke."

"I assure you that there won't be any war in the future," Ahmadinejad told a news conference Tuesday during a visit to Malaysia for a summit of developing Muslim nations.

But even as Ahmadinejad and other Iranian officials have dismissed the possibility of attack, Tehran has stepped up its warnings of retaliation if the Americans — or Israelis — do launch military action, including threats to hit Israel and U.S. Gulf bases with missiles and stop oil traffic through the vital Gulf region.

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called Wednesday's tests "evidence that the missile threat is not an imaginary one."

"Those who say that there is no Iranian missile threat against which we should build a missile defense system perhaps ought to talk to the Iranians about their claims," Rice said while traveling in Sofia, Bulgaria.

A White House spokesman called the tests "completely inconsistent with Iran's obligations to the world."

"The Iranian regime only furthers the isolation of the Iranian people from the international community when it engages in this sort of activity," said Gordon Johndroe, spokesman for the National Security Council.

"They should also refrain from further missile tests if they truly seek to gain the trust of the world," he added, speaking from Japan where President Bush is attending the Group of Eight summit.

In late June, Vice Adm. Kevin Cosgriff, who was then the commander of the U.S. Navy's 5th Fleet, said any attempt by Iran to seal off the Strait of Hormuz would be viewed as an act of war. The U.S. 5th Fleet is based in Bahrain, across the Gulf from Iran.

Israel's military sent warplanes over the eastern Mediterranean for a large military exercise in June that U.S. officials described as a possible rehearsal for a strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, which the West fears are aimed at producing atomic weapons.

Iran says its nuclear program is geared only toward generating electricity, not weapons.

The Israeli exercise was widely interpreted as a show of force as well as a practice on skills needed to execute a long-range strike mission.

Shaul Mofaz, an Israeli Cabinet minister, set off an international uproar last month by saying in a published interview that Israel would have "no choice" but to attack Iran if it doesn't halt its nuclear program. Mofaz is a former military chief and defense minister, and has been Israel's representative in a strategic dialogue on Iran with U.S. officials.

On Wednesday, Israeli government spokesman Mark Regev said Israel "does not desire hostility and conflict with Iran."

"But it is clear that the Iranian nuclear program and the Iranian ballistic missile program is a matter of grave concern," Regev said.

The Guards and Iran's regular army routinely hold exercises two or three times a year.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Jul 08 - 12:50 PM

Iranian shelling reported in northern Iraq

Story Highlights
Shelling hit border villages in Qandil mountains area in Sulaimaniya province

Authorities: Party of Free Life of Kurdistan is based in the region

Kurdish region a contiguous area that spread across Iraq, Iran, Syria and Turkey


By CNN's Mohammed Tawfeeq
   
BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Iranian artillery shells rained down on villages in northern Iraq Wednesday where Kurdish rebels were thought to be operating.

A security official with Iraq's Kurdish Regional Government in Sulaimaniya confirmed the information.

The early-morning shelling hit border villages in Qandil mountains area in Sulaimaniya province and there were no reports of casualties.

Authorities say the Party of Free Life of Kurdistan is based in the region.

It is is part of an alliance of Kurdish rebel groups that includes the Kurdistan Workers' Party, which conducts attacks against Turkey from northern Iraq.

The Kurdish region is a contiguous area that spread across Iraq, Iran, Syria and Turkey and the Kurdish rebels in those regions are fighting for an independent Kurdish state.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Jul 08 - 01:59 PM

Leading diplomat calls Iran a top concern for U.S.

Story Highlights
NEW: Diplomat refuses to comment on report of increased covert operations in Iran

U.S. Undersecretary of State William Burns testifies on Iran before House panel

Burns appears hours after Iran test-fires a long-range missile

U.S. calls on Iran to refrain from further missile tests to help build trust

   
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Iran is as serious a problem as any the U.S. faces today, top State Department official William Burns said Wednesday, hours after the Islamic republic test-fired a long-range missile.

Burns, the undersecretary of state for political affairs, made the comments testifying before the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

The committee's chairman, Rep. Howard Berman, D-California, said in his opening statement, "Stopping Iran's nuclear quest is our most urgent strategic challenge."

But Burns, the highest-ranking career diplomat at the State Department, said the United States should not overestimate the threat Iran poses, saying the country's economy is weak and it is diplomatically isolated.

"Iran is not 10 feet tall, nor is it even the dominant regional actor," he said. "Because of its behavior, it can't count on any friends except for Cuba, Venezuela and Belarus."

He added, "And the world's leading financial institutions have largely stopped dealing with Iran, and especially Iranian banks, in any currency. They do not want to risk unwittingly facilitating the regime's proliferation or terrorism activities."

Burns said the United States is trying to work with other countries to press Tehran to stop its nuclear program and end support for militant groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah.

He said Washington is having mixed results.

He said Russia, which helped Iran build a nuclear reactor, "has moved to clamp down" on Tehran, though it has not unequivocally taken Washington's side.

China "has been frustratingly slow" to support the United States against Iran, he said.

Burns wouldn't comment when questioned about a magazine report this month suggesting President Bush had sought $400 million for covert operations inside Iran.

"I'm very well aware of the story, and I can't comment on sensitive intelligence matters," he said.

The White House reacted strongly to Wednesday's test-firing by the Iranians, calling it "a violation of United Nations Security Council resolutions and completely inconsistent with Iran's obligations to the world."

National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe said: "They should also refrain from further missile tests if they truly seek to gain the trust of the world. The Iranians should stop the development of ballistic missiles, which could be used as a delivery vehicle for a potential nuclear weapon, immediately."

He added that the United States, Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany "are committed to a diplomatic path and have offered Iran a generous package of incentives if they will suspend their uranium enrichment activities."

Iran maintains it is pursuing nuclear power for civilian use, not to build nuclear weapons.

Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, said the tests "demonstrate again the dangers it [Iran] poses to its neighbors and to the wider region, especially Israel."

"Ballistic missile testing coupled with Iran's continued refusal to cease its nuclear activities should unite the international community in efforts to counter Iran's dangerous ambitions," he added.

McCain supports working with Europe and regional allies to deal with Iran, not "unilateral concessions."

His expected Democratic opponent, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, said, "We need to change our policy to deal aggressively with the threat posed by the Iranian regime. Through its nuclear program, missile capability, meddling in Iraq, support for terrorism and threats against Israel, Iran now poses the greatest strategic challenge to the United States in the region in a generation."

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Amos
Date: 09 Jul 08 - 02:14 PM

Bruce:

Question: DO you think Iran should have the freedom to develop nuclear-powered electrical-generating capabiltiies?

The sad fact is that this administration has no understanding of how to deal with a tribal nation, nor any understanding of how they account face, machismo, and other such important cultural vectors; hence, no way to communicate. The bullyrag approach will simply force them to act more macho, according tot heir cultural boases. Ignoring that is as stupid as poking a stick into a wasp-nest. It's just stupid tactics.

There is probably some clear differential diagnostic between the two paths of nuclear technolgoy that could be used to make it clear which way they are going.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Jul 08 - 02:17 PM

Amos,

"Question: DO you think Iran should have the freedom to develop nuclear-powered electrical-generating capabiltiies?"

ANSWER: Yes, within the controls ( That the other signitories of the NPT have to comply with) that Iran has refused to accept.




Question: Do you think that Iran should have the freedom to develop WMD in violation of the NPT that they signed in order to get that nuclear power?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,Above 49
Date: 09 Jul 08 - 02:19 PM

you gotta love how bruce (up coming pun alert) liberally quotes from CNN, either he has shares or his politcal bias is showing. I know which one I'd bet on.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Jul 08 - 05:28 PM

Analysis: US and Iran appear on collision course

By MATTHEW LEE, Associated Press Writer
31 minutes ago



WASHINGTON - The United States and Iran appear on a collision course in the Middle East, firing off mixed messages that are raising world tension and roiling oil markets amid fears that an eventual confrontation may be military.

Both insist war is not imminent, but their sharp words and provocative actions are stoking uncertainty as Washington and Tehran joust for strategic supremacy in the oil-rich region where American might — along with that of its top ally in the area, Israel — has long been dominant.

Concern spiked on Wednesday when Iran test-fired nine long- and medium-range missiles during war games in the Strait of Hormuz, aiming to show it can retaliate against any U.S. or Israeli attack. The display followed a joint military exercise by Israel and Greece last month in the Mediterranean that many saw as a warning to Iran.

The Iranian missile tests drew a quick response from Washington, which said the launches were further reason not to trust a country that it already accuses of fomenting instability in Iraq, supporting Israel's foes and attempting to build nuclear weapons. The testing sent oil prices higher before they calmed down later in the day.

This despite the fact that leaders on both sides — President Bush and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad — had just this week tried to tamp down speculation that the use of force is inevitable.

As he nears the end of his presidency, Bush says repeatedly that diplomacy is his preferred option to deal with any threat posed by Iran's nuclear program, although he has just as often refused to take the military option off the table. Ahmadinejad, who has often spoken of wiping Israel off the map, this week dismissed talk of war as a "funny joke."

"I assure you that there won't be any war in the future," Ahmadinejad said Tuesday during a visit to Malaysia.

Shortly after Wednesday's missile tests, the White House didn't fling out any dire new warnings to Iran but settled for saying the testing was "completely inconsistent with Iran's obligations to the world" and served to further isolate the country.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice stood clear of discussing possible military responses, arguing that the tests instead were proof that a proposed missile shield for Europe, a system that has drawn vehement opposition from Russia, is vital to defending U.S. interests and allies.

At a Pentagon news conference, Gates allowed that there had been a "lot of signaling going on" in the escalation of rhetoric between Iran, Israel and the U.S., but he added he does not think confrontation is closer.

So why does speculation about conflict continue to grow?

A main reason may be that neither side appears able to judge the other's true intent.

U.S. officials say they can't discern Iran's motivations, citing the closed nature of the regime and ostensible differences between the country's hardline Islamic religious leaders, its Revolutionary Guards and moderates. Some Iranian leaders may want peace, but not others, they say.

While Ahmadinejad tones down his rhetoric, others in Tehran have stepped up warnings of retaliation if the Americans — or Israelis — launch military action against Iran's nuclear sites. They threaten to hit Israel and U.S. regional bases with missiles and stop oil traffic through the vital Gulf region.

Wednesday's launches "demonstrate our resolve and might against enemies who in recent weeks have threatened Iran with harsh language," said Gen. Hossein Salami, the Revolutionary Guard's air force commander, according to state media. "Our hands are always on the trigger and our missiles are ready for launch," he was quoted as saying.

At the same time, the Iranian leadership may face a similar quandary in judging U.S. intentions. While Bush, Gates and Rice are stressing diplomacy, other, more hawkish, elements of the administration, notably Vice President Dick Cheney, are using more bellicose language similar to that of Israeli officials who have been more outspoken about the possible use of force.

And, with Bush's second term waning, Iran's calculations are also likely to be guided by what it thinks the policies of the next U.S. president will be.

The Republican and Democratic candidates, John McCain and Barack Obama, both agree Iran is a threat. But they differ on how to deal with it.

Obama said the tests underscored the need for direct diplomacy with Tehran, while McCain's response mirrored that of the Bush administration and focused on tougher sanctions against Iran.

Some analysts believe Bush will act militarily against Iran before he leaves office in six months and that if he doesn't, McCain will, if he is elected.

John Pike, the director of GlobalSecurity.org, a defense, security and space intelligence consultancy, is one.

"Bombing is either going to be the last thing Mr. Bush does or the first thing Mr. McCain does," he said.

___

EDITOR'S NOTE: Matthew Lee covers U.S. foreign policy for the Associated Press and has reported on diplomacy and international affairs for 14 years.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 09 Jul 08 - 09:27 PM

If Mr. Bush would like to see US gas prices at $10.00 per gallon, long lines at gas pumps, millions of people unable to get to work because they either can't get or can't afford gas for their cars, empty grocery shelves because truckers can't afford diesel fuel, and thousands of angry people in the streets performing acts of civil unrest that make those of the late '60s look like something from "Mary Poppins" then, by all means, he should attack Iran. It would give him a great opportunity to declare a state of emergency, suspend the Constitution, call off the upcoming elections, throw millions of us into those waiting-to-be-filled detainment camps out in the desert, and declare himself "President Until Things Get Back to Normal" which, of course, they never will.

If it happens, ya'll have fun. I'll stay here in the woods and eat possums and armadillos while the rest of you starve.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 12:21 AM

Maybe both the Bush administration and the Iranian government are ratcheting up the rhetoric in order to artificially inflate the price of oil. The Bush administration on behalf of their cronies in the oil industry, and the Iranian govt. because they are also benefiting from high oil prices. It definitely wouldn't surprise me if this was the case.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 01:23 PM

NKorea nuclear talks resume, focus on verification

By KWANG-TAE KIM, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 29 minutes ago



BEIJING - Negotiators resumed talks Thursday on North Korea's nuclear disarmament, looking to lay out a program for what could be a lengthy attempt to verify the country's declaration of its atomic materials.

The latest round of six-nation talks comes after North Korea handed over the much-delayed list late last month and then blew up a cooling tower for its main nuclear reactor to demonstrate its commitment.

"I want to emphasize that all of us gathered here share the same strategic objectives," China's nuclear envoy, Wu Dawei, said at the start of the talks. "The ultimate objective is the realization of a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula."

Wu said that steps forward, including the recent declaration, meant the hard work was paying off.

"All these successes have led us to believe that if we work together, stick to the guidelines and concepts, honor our commitments, the strategic goals will undoubtedly be realized," he said.

After the parties adjourned for the day, South Korean envoy Kim Sook said they met in a "serious and businesslike atmosphere."

Negotiators touched on the four topics that will be addressed during the talks, but the most discussion was on the top item — establishing a verification and monitoring mechanism, Kim said.

The other topics are the completion of energy aid promised to North Korea, details of a meeting for the foreign ministers of the six countries, and future steps in the disarmament process.

Negotiators planned to resume Friday morning, with a separate working group meeting on the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula planned if the verification talks make progress, Kim said.

Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill told reporters earlier that after agreeing on the verification process, the verification itself "will take several weeks or even months, actually."

Some basic agreements on the process include interviews with North Korean officials and site visits, Hill said. "There are a lot of details that need to be fleshed out," he said.

In response to North Korea's declaration, the United States announced it would remove the North from a list of state sponsors of terrorism and relax some economic sanctions against the communist nation.

The exchanges paved the way for the resumption of the six-nation meetings in Beijing after a nine-month lull. The talks also include South Korea, Japan and Russia.

The nuclear standoff began in late 2002 when the U.S. accused the North of seeking to secretly enrich uranium in violation of a 1994 disarmament deal.

The architect of Pakistan's nuclear program, Abdul Qadeer Khan, told The Associated Press last week that he recalled uranium enrichment equipment being sent from Pakistan to North Korea in 2000.

The United States had previously insisted that North Korea detail its alleged uranium enrichment program as well as nuclear cooperation with Syria in the declaration.

But Washington has apparently backed down from that demand, drawing criticism from American conservatives who say the Bush administration is going too far to strike a deal with the North before leaving office next year.

On Thursday, North Korea accused U.S. conservatives of trying to "scuttle the denuclearization process on the Korean peninsula."

"What should not be overlooked is that the U.S. conservative hard-liners have seriously misinterpreted (North Korea's) willingness and efforts for denuclearization in order to serve their interests," the North's official Korean Central News Agency said in a commentary.

"This proves what extent of their hostile policy toward (North Korea) has reached," it said.

North Korea's nuclear declaration, which was delivered six months later than the country promised, is said to only give the overall figure for how much plutonium was produced at its main Yongbyon nuclear complex — but no details of bombs that may have been made.

Experts believe the North has produced as much as 110 pounds of weapons-grade plutonium, enough for up to 10 nuclear bombs.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Amos
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 01:26 PM

Good luck on those possums and 'dillos, BWL. Hope you're starting a breeding program so you won't run out.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 10:50 PM

The Israelis are likely to do Bush's dirty work for him.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 23 Jul 08 - 09:13 AM

Rice presses North Korea on nuclear program
By MATTHEW LEE, Associated Press Writer
50 minutes ago



SINGAPORE - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice urged North Korea to accept terms to verify the dismantling of its nuclear weapons program, as the two countries ended a four-year hiatus in cabinet-level talks on Wednesday.

Rice told North Korean Foreign Minister Pak Ui Chun that his nation must move quickly to prove it has told the truth about its past atomic activities if it wants to improve ties with the United States, its immediate neighbors and end its international isolation.

"We didn't get into specific timetables, but the spirit was good because people believe we have made progress," she told reporters after the meeting on the sidelines of an Asian security forum in Singapore.

"There is also a sense of urgency about moving forward and a sense that we can't afford to have another hiatus," Rice said of her talks with Pak and the foreign ministers of the other four nations — China, Japan, Russia and South Korea — involved in the effort.

In a brief one-on-one exchange at the end of the 80-minute meeting, she reminded Pak of the importance the United States places on the process and also on North Korea resolving the issue of Japanese citizens it abducted in the 1980s, a senior U.S. official said.

The official spoke on condition of anonymity to describe a private diplomatic exchange.

Rice said there had been "no surprises" at the gathering, which had been characterized as informal and informational, and agreed with her counterparts that all six parties to the talks had reaffirmed their commitment to the ultimate goal of denuclearizing North Korea.

"I think this is quite significant," said Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi. "It shows the six parties have the political will to move forward with the ... process."

Yang said the group had made "major headway" in obtaining verifiable accounting of North Korea's nuclear program and others said they believed the meeting would boost the effort ahead a formal ministerial meeting to be held at an as-yet-unscheduled date in Beijing.

"Although it was not an official meeting, I think it was a good opportunity to show that the six-party process is maturing," said South Korean Foreign Minister Yu Myung-hwan. "I think (it) will give a political impetus for further six-party talks."

Diplomats had expected Pak to present at least an initial response to the four-page proposed "verification protocol" that was given to North Korea this month after it delivered a declaration containing details of its nuclear program in June.

But just hours before the talks began, North Korea insisted it had met its commitments and said Washington must completely abandon its "hostile policies" toward the regime if the denuclearization process is to succeed.

"What is important in the next stage is that these measures should lead to a complete abandonment of hostile (U.S.) policies toward our republic," North Korean spokesman Ri Tong Il told reporters. Pyongyang maintains that Washington is intent on North Korea's destruction.

However, he also said that Pyongyang hoped the meeting would build momentum toward ending the declaration and verification stage and move toward a formal end to the 1950-53 Korean War, which closed with an armistice rather than a peace treaty.

Rice said there had been "a lot of discussion" about the proposal, which calls for intrusive inspections, interviews with scientists and a role for the U.N. nuclear watchdog, but would not say if the North had moved beyond preliminary objections to some of elements.

However, she insisted that the meeting "was actually very good."

"It wasn't a standoff with people just stating their positions ... it was interactive," she said.

Wednesday's meeting marked the first time since 2004 that the top diplomats from the United States and North Korea have met face-to-face.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Jul 08 - 11:22 AM

I guess Korea must be next, since we have recently learned from Senator McCain that Iran doesn't exist.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Jul 08 - 11:32 AM

I have one word for y'all.

Just one word.

























Liechtenstein.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 25 Aug 08 - 04:34 PM

Obama would step up pressure on Iran over nukes

By BETH FOUHY, Associated Press Writer
8 minutes ago



DAVENPORT, Iowa - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama pledged Monday that he would step up diplomatic pressure to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons before Israel feels that "its back is against the wall" and might take military action.

Campaigning In Iowa on his way to the Democratic convention in Denver, Obama was asked about rumors that Israel had a "green lighted" an attack on Iran before the presidential election in November. Obama refused to comment on the rumors but acknowledged that Israel feels threatened.

"I will tell you having visited Israel just a month and a half ago, their general attitude is, 'We will not allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon,'" Obama said. "My job as president would be to try to make sure we are tightening the screws diplomatically on Iran, that we mobilize the world community to go after Iran's nuclear program in a serious way. ... We have to do it before Israel feels its back is against the wall."

Obama was referring to the possibility that Israel might try to destroy one or more of Iran's known nuclear facilities out of fear that any weapon that emerged would be used against the Jewish state. Israel would presumably launch an air strike only as a last resort and after the United States had decided against launching its own action. President Bush has always left a military option on the table but there is little time and less political support for a unilateral U.S. strike before Bush leaves office.

Iran denies it is seeking a bomb and insists it has the right to develop nuclear expertise to produce energy. Iran has all but ignored punitive sanctions levied by the United Nations, the United States and Europe and rapidly increased the pace of its nuclear development.

The Bush administration reversed course two years ago and agreed to join European diplomatic talks with Iran that are meant to roll back its nuclear program. Iran refused to meet a precondition that it shelve its enrichment of uranium during talks, and the U.S. offer went nowhere. Obama has said he would meet Iran's leaders for talks without precondition if he determined it would help.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 29 Aug 08 - 10:10 PM

Iran confirms nuclear component production

Story Highlights
Spinning centrifuges are used to separate uranium atoms to produce uranium

Uranium is concentrated enough for a nuclear weapon's fission chain reaction

West believes Iran's nuclear program intended to develop nuclear weapons
   
(CNN) -- Iran's deputy foreign minister said Friday that almost 4,000 uranium-enriching centrifuges are now operating at the country's Natanz enrichment facility, the national IRNA news agency reported.

Spinning centrifuges are used to separate uranium atoms to produce uranium concentrated enough for a nuclear weapon's fission chain reaction.

Ali-Reza Sheikh Attar told Iranian TV that another 3,000 centrifuges are being installed, IRNA said.

Iran announced nearly a year ago, in September 2007, that it had more than 3,000 active centrifuges. In April, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad promised to install 6,000 more over the coming year.

The United States and other Western nations believe Iran's nuclear program is intended to develop nuclear weapons, but Iran insists it is only for peaceful purposes.

The United Nations already has three sanctions resolutions against Iran for failing to suspend the program. Attar said Thursday the sanctions are "futile and ineffective," IRNA reported.

"Had Westerners become certain that the resolutions would bring us down to our knees, they would have definitely intensified (the sanctions)," IRNA quoted Attar as saying.

The five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and Germany -- a group called P5+1 -- offered a package of economic and other incentives to Iran in July if it suspended its nuclear enrichment program.

Iran failed to meet the group's deadline to accept the offer, leading the P5+1 to discuss further sanctions against Iran, a State Department spokesman said this month.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 15 Sep 08 - 12:23 PM

Iran stalls probe into alleged atom bomb research:

IAEA By Mark Heinrich
Mon Sep 15, 8:12 AM ET



VIENNA (Reuters) - A U.N. inquiry into intelligence allegations of secret atom bomb research in Iran has reached a standstill because of Iranian non-cooperation, an International Atomic Energy Agency report said on Monday.

"We have arrived at a gridlock," said a senior U.N. official familiar with the latest report, which urged Iran to take the intelligence allegations seriously to defuse suspicions its nuclear work is not entirely peaceful.

The confidential report also said Iran had raised the number of centrifuges enriching uranium to 3,820, compared with 3,300 in May, with over 2,000 more being installed.

But Iran seemed some way from refining enough uranium to build a nuclear weapon, if it chose, the report indicated.

Iran had stockpiled 480 kg (1,050 pounds) of low-enriched uranium so far. It would need 15,000 kg (33,000) to convert into high-enriched uranium for fuelling an atom bomb, said U.N. officials who spoke on condition of anonymity.

"That would be a significant quantity, one unit of HEU, and would take on the order of two years," said one official.

In its last report in May, the IAEA said Iran appeared to be withholding information needed to explain intelligence that it had linked projects to process uranium, test high explosives and modify a missile cone in a way suitable for a nuclear warhead.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Sep 08 - 12:24 PM

NKorea preparing to restore nuclear reactor

By HYUNG-JIN KIM, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 53 minutes ago



PANMUNJOM, Korea - North Korea said Friday it is making "thorough preparations" to restart its nuclear reactor, accusing the United States of failing to fulfill its obligations under an international disarmament-for-aid agreement.

It was the first time the communist nation has confirmed a reversal of steps taken since last year to disable its nuclear program because of Washington's refusal to quickly remove it from a U.S. terrorism blacklist.

"We are making thorough preparations for restoration" of the Yongbyon nuclear complex, Foreign Ministry Deputy Director-General Hyun Hak Bong told reporters.

The Foreign Ministry said North Korea no longer wanted to be taken off the blacklist.

"Now that the United States' true colors have been brought to light, (North Korea) no longer wishes to be delisted as a 'state sponsor of terrorism' — and does not expect such a thing to happen," said a ministry statement carried by the country's official news agency, KCNA.

North Korea "will go its own way," it said.

Under the landmark 2007 pact — involving the two Koreas, the U.S., China, Russia and Japan — North Korea pledged to disable its nuclear program as a step toward its eventual dismantlement in exchange for diplomatic concessions and energy aid equivalent to 1 million tons of oil.

North Korea began disabling the Yongbyon complex last year, and the process was 90 percent complete, with eight of 11 key steps carried out "perfectly and flawlessly," Hyun said.

In late June, North Korea submitted a long-delayed declaration of its nuclear activities and destroyed the cooling tower of its reactor at Yongbyon in a show of its commitment to denuclearization.

But the accord ran aground in mid-August when Washington refused to take North Korea off its list of states that sponsor terrorism, saying the North first must accept a plan to verify its nuclear declaration.

North Korea responded by halting the disabling process and is now "proceeding with work to restore (Yongbyon) to its original status," Hyun said. He did not say when complex might begin operating again.

Hyun spoke in the border village of Panmunjom before talks Friday with South Korean officials on sending energy aid to the North as part of the six-nation disarmament deal. The talks concluded late Friday afternoon.

Hyun warned Washington not to press the verification issue, saying verification was never part of the disarmament deal.

"The U.S. is insisting that we accept unilateral demands that had not been agreed upon. They want to go anywhere at any time to collect samples and carry out examinations with measuring equipment," he said. "That means they intend to force an inspection."

He said forcing North Korea to comply with such an inspection would exacerbate tensions.

The White House had no immediate reaction early Friday.

South Korean and U.S. officials say it would take at least a year for North Korea to restart the reactor if it is completely disabled.

South Korean officials urged the North during the talks at the border to resume disabling its nuclear facilities, saying energy aid is linked to that process, according to a South Korean official who spoke on condition of anonymity in line with government policy.

Friday's talks — proposed by the North — indicate it does not want to completely scuttle the six-party negotiations, analysts said.

"The North is sending a message that it wants to maintain the six-party talks," said Koh Yu-hwan, a North Korea expert at Seoul's Dongguk University. "The North also wants to get the remaining energy aid with winter drawing closer."

Seoul's delegate at the talks, Hwang Joon-kook, assured North Korea that it would receive the remaining energy aid it was promised.

But South Korea's foreign minister said North Korea's intentions remained unclear.

"It's still uncertain whether the North's measures are aimed at reversing the whole situation to the pre-disablement level" or are a negotiating tactic, Yu Myung-hwan told reporters in Seoul.

The tensions come amid reports that North Korean leader Kim Jong Il has suffered a stroke. Kim, 66, has not been seen in public for more than a month and has missed two major public events: a military parade marking North Korea's 60th birthday and the Korean Thanksgiving holiday.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 19 Sep 08 - 12:29 PM

With McCain in the White House, it will be both and more.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Sep 08 - 12:33 PM

With Obama in the White house, we will be in a nuclear war within 6 months.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Sep 08 - 09:21 AM

N. Korea seeks removal of nuke plant seals

Story Highlights
IAEA: N.Korea wants to carry out tests at the Yongbyon reprocessing plant

N.Koreans say this will "not involve nuclear material," agency said

N.Korea had agreed to abandon its atomic weapons program for energy aid

S.Korean news agency said N.Korea restoring reactor at Yongbyon

(CNN) -- North Korea has asked U.N. nuclear agency inspectors "to remove seals and surveillance equipment to enable them to carry out tests" at the Yongbyon reprocessing plant, the agency's director-general said.


A South Korean looks at the demolition of a cooling tower at the North's Yongbyon nuclear complex, June 27, 2008.

But Mohamed ElBaradei, director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), said Monday that the North Koreans said this will "not involve nuclear material." The news comes amid fears that North Korea may want to resume its nuclear program.

ElBaradei said the agency has "continued to verify the shutdown of the nuclear facilities at Yongbyon and to implement the ad hoc monitoring and verification arrangement, with the cooperation of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea."

While not asked to take part in "disablement activities," the agency has observed and documented them.

He said agency inspectors have observed that "some equipment previously removed by the DPRK during the disablement process has been brought back. This has not changed the shutdown status of the nuclear facilities at Yongbyon.

"This morning, the DPRK authorities asked the agency's inspectors to remove seals and surveillance equipment to enable them to carry out tests at the reprocessing plant, which they say will not involve nuclear material."

He said he is hopeful that conditions can be developed for North Korea "to return to the Non-Proliferation Treaty at the earliest possible date and for the resumption by the agency of comprehensive safeguards."

Last week, a South Korean news agency reported that North Korea is restoring a reactor at Yongbyon nuclear complex and no longer wants to be removed from a U.S. list of countries that sponsor terrorism.

Don't Miss
Report: N. Korea conducted missile engine test
North Korea said to be rebuilding nuke plant
In depth: North Korea nuclear tension
Hyun Hak-Bong, a chief North Korean negotiator at six-nation talks, told reporters his country is "thoroughly preparing to restart" the reactor and that reporters would "know soon" when his country would do that, the Yonhap news agency said.

But a senior U.S. diplomat said the announcement could simply be a bargaining ploy in the long-running negotiations aimed at halting North Korea's nuclear program.

The United States had seen no indications North Korea is actually rebuilding its reactor, the diplomat said.

Diplomats have said some of the disabled parts have been moved around from storage since the latest impasse in the negotiations began, but the American diplomat believes that is a negotiating tactic.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Sep 08 - 12:04 PM

Chief inspector: Iran may be hiding secret nukes
Posted 5h 1m ago

VIENNA (AP) — The chief U.N nuclear inspector says Iran may be hiding secret nuclear activities.
Mohamed ElBaradei says it is impossible to guarantee that Iran is not hiding such activities unless it allows his inspectors much broader access and answers allegations that it hid past attempts to make nuclear arms.

ElBaradei is head of the International Atomic Energy Agency. He spoke Monday at the opening of the 35-nation IAEA board of governors.

Iran is under three sets of U.N. Security Council sanctions for refusing to freeze uranium enrichment. While Tehran says it only wants to generate nuclear fuel, there is fear it could use the process to create the fissile core of nuclear warheads.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 23 Sep 08 - 06:33 AM

Sep 22, 2008 0:05 | Updated Sep 22, 2008 15:53
Military intelligence: Iran halfway to first nuclear bomb
By HERB KEINON

Iran is halfway to a nuclear bomb, and Hizbullah, Hamas and Syria are using this period of relative calm to significantly rearm, Brig.-Gen. Yossi Baidatz, the Military Intelligence's head of research, told the cabinet Sunday during a particularly gloomy briefing on the threats facing the country.

Baidatz said there was a growing gap between Iran's progress on the nuclear front and the West's determination to stop it. "Iran is concentrating on uranium enrichment, and is making progress," he said, noting that they have improved the function of their 4,000 centrifuges.

According to Baidatz, the Iranian centrifuges have so far produced between one-third to one-half of the enriched material needed to build a bomb.

"The time when they will have crossed the nuclear point-of-no-return is fast approaching," he said, though he stopped short of giving a firm deadline. Last week in the Knesset's Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, however, he put the date at 2011.

Baidatz said that neither the efforts of the International Atomic Energy Agency nor the US and European attempts to get a fourth round of sanctions through the UN Security council were slowing down the Iranian nuclear march.

"The Iranians are pleased that the gap is widening," Baidatz said. "Their confidence is growing with the thought that the international community is not strong enough to stop them," he added.

Baidatz said the Iranians were playing for time, and that time was working in their favor since the longer the process dragged on, the wider the rifts appearing among the countries in the West become. "Iran is in control of the technology and is moving with determination toward a nuclear bomb," he said.

In addition to their nuclear efforts, the Iranians were also deepening their influence in the region through cooperation with Syria and the Palestinian terrorist organizations, as well as being the main arms supplier to Hizbullah and a source of constant attacks on American troops in Iraq. All of this, he said, was part of Iran's efforts to stand at the head of the region's extremist front.

The region's moderates, he said, were limiting their opposition to "just rhetoric."

Baidatz also briefed the ministers on the situation in Gaza and the Palestinian Authority since the beginning of the "calm" in Gaza on June 19, some three months ago.

Baidatz said that while the cease-fire has - for the most part - held, the intelligence agencies were seeing some weakening of Hamas and Islamic Jihad's commitment to it. He said that the cease-fire had led to a significant drop in rocket fire on the western Negev, and that since the cease-fire went into effect, some 15 rockets and 13 mortars had been fired from Gaza into the Western Negev.

Nevertheless, he said that the terrorist organizations were still planning attacks from Gaza, and were recruiting terrorists to go from Gaza into the Sinai, and then back into Israel to carry out attacks or kidnap soldiers.

Regarding kidnapped soldier Gilad Schalit, Baidatz said that Hizbullah had stiffened its demands, believing that Schalit was an "asset," and that the price for his release would only increase. "They are not rushing for a solution, and are preventing a renewal of talks on the matter with Egypt." he said.

Hamas and the other terrorist organizations have taken advantage of the cease-fire to rearm and prepare for the next round of fighting, increasing training and continuing to smuggle in raw materials that allow it to increase its rocket arsenal. As a result of of the cease-fire, he said, the threat to the home front and the IDF had increased.

Baidatz said the smuggling from Egypt was continuing, although the Egyptians - with the help of US technology - were also showing better results in detecting the smuggling tunnels. At the same time, the Egyptians were still not dealing with the root of the problem, which was the need to go after Beduin smugglers in Sinai, he said.

Baidatz added that as time went on, Hamas was consolidating its political hold on Gaza, and that he didn't think the Egyptians had much chance of success in mediating an agreement between Hamas and Fatah.

Regarding Israel's negotiations with the PA, Baidatz said the Palestinian Authority was not willing to compromise on core issues, and was opposed to a partial agreement. He said the PA was holding firm to the position that nothing was agreed until everything was agreed, and were continuing to demand an end to all construction in the West Bank.

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has recently tried to get the PA to agree to moving negotiations over Jerusalem to another framework, so it did not hold up attempts to come up with some kind of shelf agreement by the end of the year.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 Sep 08 - 07:35 AM

Washington Post:


Iran Slips Away

Even as its nuclear program accelerates, the impetus to stop it loses steam.

Tuesday, September 23, 2008; Page A20

AMID THE financial crisis and the worsening violence in Afghanistan and Pakistan, Iran's nuclear program and Western efforts to stop it have slipped down Washington's list of priorities. That's just what Tehran's ruling mullahs were hoping for. The government of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is still stonewalling international inspectors trying to investigate evidence that Iran has secretly worked on nuclear bomb and missile warhead technology. This summer, it rebuffed the latest Western effort to open negotiations -- one whose only precondition was that Iran agree to a six-week pause in adding centrifuges to the 3,800 it has already installed in a uranium enrichment plant. At the same time, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps has temporarily lowered its profile, supporting cease-fires by the militant groups it backs in Lebanon and the Gaza Strip and pulling back the "special groups" that were organizing deadly attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq.

The result, as Iran races toward accumulating enough uranium for a bomb, is that the sense of urgency about the threat it poses is lower here and in Europe than it was six months or a year ago. The board of the International Atomic Energy Agency gathered yesterday in Vienna to hear a stern report about Tehran's continuing refusal to answer key questions about the program. A six-member group of permanent U.N. Security Council members and Germany will meet this week in an attempt to demonstrate that it can still work together in spite of the growing rift between Russia and the West. But there seems to be little prospect that the Security Council will agree anytime soon on a fourth round of U.N. sanctions -- much less the tough measures that might command Tehran's attention.

What might those measures be? The two most important would be an arms embargo -- which would prevent Russia from supplying Iran with the advanced air defense systems it has reportedly promised -- and a ban on the export to Iran of gasoline and other refined products, which could cripple Iranian transport. But Bush administration officials appear to have all but given up hope that the Security Council would approve such tough action. Instead, they hope mainly for the symbolism of another unanimous resolution that will reinforce Iran's diplomatic isolation and justify unilateral U.S. or European measures, such as a recent attempt to curtail insurance for Iranian shipping.

There's no indication that such steps will change Iranian behavior soon -- nor is a military strike by the United States or Israel likely in the coming months. That means the next major initiative to stop an Iranian bomb will probably be a new effort by the next U.S. president to launch negotiations; Barack Obama has made it a centerpiece of his policy, and John McCain has said he's willing to support talks as well. Both also say they will work to stiffen sanctions. That, of course, is the strategy the United States and European governments have already been pursuing for several years -- without success. Why do the candidates believe they will succeed where the Bush administration has failed? That would be a good topic for Friday's foreign policy debate.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 23 Sep 08 - 10:04 AM

"Iran insists its nuclear activities are geared only toward generating power. But Israel says the Islamic Republic could have enough nuclear material to make its first bomb within a year. The U.S. estimates Tehran is at least two years away from that stage."


http://www.mail.com/Article.aspx?articlepath=APNews\General-World-News\20080923\UN-General-Assembly.xml&cat=world&subcat=&pageid




Good to know we can wait for the next administration before we worry about this...

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 25 Sep 08 - 11:55 AM

North Korea's Reverse

The framework for dismantling the world's most dangerous nuclear program is crumbling.

Thursday, September 25, 2008; Page A18

IN JUNE, the Bush administration's diplomacy with North Korea finally produced the video clip negotiators had long hoped for: that showing the demolition of the cooling tower at the Yongbyon nuclear reactor. Now, it appears that that picture, which suggested that North Korea's dismantling of its nuclear infrastructure was irreversible, may have been misleading. Yesterday, the secretive communist regime ejected U.N. nuclear inspectors from Yongbyon and announced that it planned to reactivate a reprocessing plant that produces plutonium for weapons. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, nuclear material may be brought back into the facility within a week.

This provocative action triggered a familiar discussion among experts about what North Korea might be up to. Is it trying to bluff the West and its partners in the "six-party" negotiations into making further concessions? Are hard-liners in the regime of Kim Jong Il trying to reverse its commitment to denuclearize in exchange for economic and political concessions? And is Mr. Kim himself still running the country? The reclusive dictator reportedly suffered a stroke in mid-August and has not been seen in public since.

As always, there are no sure answers to these questions. Yet it seems fairly clear that, even before Mr. Kim's apparent illness, the action-for-action framework signed with North Korea early last year was coming undone, despite the increasingly desperate efforts of the State Department to hold it together. A much-awaited declaration by Pyongyang of all its nuclear programs was accepted by the administration even though the declaration omitted several major elements that U.S. officials had insisted would be included, such as an explanation of work on uranium enrichment. The State Department suggested that such questions could be cleared up by a promised verification process. But Mr. Kim's negotiators promptly rejected U.S. verification proposals while insisting that the administration deliver on the promised removal of North Korea from the State Department's list of terrorism sponsors.

It could be that North Korea simply wants Washington to deliver its largely symbolic political concession before agreeing to a verification regime. But it's more likely that Pyongyang is fundamentally unwilling to accept the full disclosure of its arsenal -- and verification is a step that the Bush administration cannot afford to fudge. U.S. diplomacy should now shift toward reapplying economic pressure on the regime and persuading China and South Korea to adopt new sanctions of their own. Whoever is now in charge of North Korea must be made to understand that a reversal of the denuclearization process will result in the country's economic strangulation.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 25 Sep 08 - 04:00 PM

Iran to launch satellite with own rocket to space

By NASSER KARIMI, Associated Press Writer
Thu Sep 25, 11:29 AM ET



TEHRAN, Iran - Iran plans to launch a satellite into space soon using an Iranian-made rocket, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said.

Iran has in the past launched satellites using rockets built by other nations, but this was the first announcement of such a launch with an all-Iranian made rocket.

Ahmadinejad said the rocket will have 16 engines and will take a satellite some 430 miles into space, according to a state television report Thursday.

The satellite will likely be a commercial one for communication or meteorological research purposes. Iran has never announced plans to launch military satellites.

But the country has long pursued the goal of developing a space program, generating unease among world leaders already concerned about its nuclear and ballistic missile programs.

The same technology used to put satellites into space can be used to deliver warheads, which will likely further raise concerns over Tehran's advances in rocketry, especially in Israel.

Earlier this month, Tehran announced that a joint research satellite built by Iran, China and Thailand, was sent into orbit by a Chinese-made rocket. At the time, Iranian officials said the three countries suffer from natural disasters and that the satellite would transmit photos to help deal with such crises.

Tehran sent its first commercial satellite into space on a Russian rocket in 2005. Last month, Iran tested a rocket which it hopes will one day carry an all-Iranian research satellite.

The remarks by the Iranian president came during his meeting with a group of Iranian expatriates in New York, where Ahmadinejad is attending the U.N. General Assembly.

There were no details about what type of satellite the rocket would carry, and Ahmadinejad gave no time frame for the plan.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Sep 08 - 04:27 PM

Talkin' to yourself again, Bruce? ;-)

I've told you and told you and told you. It's Liechtenstein. They're next. Only one difference this time though...they're going to win.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 26 Sep 08 - 08:30 AM

Iran students unveil book mocking Holocaust

Sep 26 07:19 AM US/Eastern

Iranians chanted "Death to Israel" as a group of Islamist students unveiled a book mocking the Holocaust in an annual parade on Friday to show solidarity with the Palestinians.
Featuring dozens of cartoons and sarcastic commentary, the book "Holocaust" was published by members of the Islamist Basij militia.

Education Minister Alireza Ali-Ahmadi was present in the capital's Palestine Square for the book's presentation during the annual Quds (Jerusalem) Day parade.

The cover shows a Jew with a crooked nose and dressed in traditional garb drawing outlines of dead bodies on the ground.

Inside, bearded Jews are shown leaving and re-entering a gas chamber with a counter that reads the number 5,999,999.

Another depicts Jewish prisoners entering a furnace in a Nazi extermination camp and leaving as gun-wielding terrorists from the other side.

Yet another shows a patient covered in an Israeli flag and on life support breathing Zyklon-B, the poisonous gas used in the extermination chambers.

Iran does not recognise the Jewish state and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has attracted international condemnation by repeatedly predicting Israel is doomed to disappear and branding the Holocaust a "myth."

The commentary inside the book includes anti-Semitic stereotypes and revisionist arguments, casting doubt on the massacre of Jews and mocking Holocaust survivors who claimed reparations after World War II.

One comment in a question-and-answer format reads:

"How did the Germans emit gas into chambers while there were no holes on the ceiling?" Answer: "Shut up, you criminal anti-Semite. How dare you ask this question?"

In 2006, Iran hosted a conference of Holocaust deniers and revisionists and a mass-circulating Iranian newspaper held a cartoon competition on the subject.

On Friday, tens of thousands of Iranians marched in Tehran, chanting "Death to Israel," declaring solidarity with the Palestinians and calling for Jerusalem and Israel to be handed to the Palestinians.

Demonstrators carried placards which read, "Israel will be destroyed, Palestine is Victorious" and "Holy war until victory," and they torched American and Israeli flags.

The protest follows a fresh verbal attack on Israel by Ahmadinejad.

In an address to the UN General Assembly in New York on Tuesday, he said "the Zionist regime is on a definite slope to collapse and there is no way for it to get out of the cesspool created by itself and its supporters."

Quds Day was started by the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, founder of the Islamic republic, who called on the world's Muslims to show solidarity with Palestinians on the last Friday of the fasting month of Ramadan.

A mother of six, Zahra Hedayat, 47, said: "It is important to support Palestinians to show the world that Israel is oppressive, and, God willing, one day Muslims will get Palestine back."

The demonstration was held under an official slogan: "The Islamic world will not recognise the fake Zionist regime under any circumstances and believes that this cancerous tumour will one day be wiped off the face of the earth."

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 26 Sep 08 - 08:33 AM

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/25/iran.israelandthepalestinians1

"Olmert himself raised the possibility of an attack at a press conference during a visit to London last November, when he said sanctions were not enough to block Iran's nuclear programme.

"Economic sanctions are effective. They have an important impact already, but they are not sufficient. So there should be more. Up to where? Up until Iran will stop its nuclear programme," he said.

The revelation that Olmert was not merely sabre-rattling to try to frighten Iran but considered the option seriously enough to discuss it with Bush shows how concerned Israeli officials had become.

Bush's refusal to support an attack, and the strong suggestion he would not change his mind, is likely to end speculation that Washington might be preparing an "October surprise" before the US presidential election. Some analysts have argued that Bush would back an Israeli attack in an effort to help John McCain's campaign by creating an eve-of-poll security crisis. "

"Mark Regev, Olmert's spokesman, tonight reacted to the Guardian's story saying: "The need to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons is raised at every meeting between the prime minister and foreign leaders. Israel prefers a diplomatic solution to this issue but all options must remain on the table. Your unnamed European source attributed words to the prime minister that were not spoken in any working meeting with foreign guests". "

"A few days later, Israel's deputy prime minister, Shaul Mofaz, told the paper Yediot Ahronot: "If Iran continues its programme to develop nuclear weapons, we will attack it. The window of opportunity has closed. The sanctions are not effective. There will be no alternative but to attack Iran in order to stop the Iranian nuclear programme." "

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 Sep 08 - 11:52 AM

Iran urged to end 'secretive' nuclear ways

Story Highlights
Six-year probe doesn't rule out possibility Iran is running secret nuclear programs

Europe urges Iran to fully cooperate with a U.N probe assessing its nuclear activities

U.N. Security Council has approved resolution critical of Iran

VIENNA, Austria (AP) -- A six-year probe has not ruled out the possibility that Iran may be running clandestine nuclear programs, the chief United Nations nuclear inspector said Monday, urging the country to end its secretive ways.

Mohamed ElBaradei, U.N. nuclear watchdog chief, warned of the dangers of a strike on Iran.

Europe also urged Iran to fully cooperate with a U.N probe that is trying to assess its past and current nuclear activities. An EU statement at the opening session of the International Atomic Energy Agency's 145-nation conference declared: "The international community cannot accept the prospect of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons."

Iran and ally Syria are among four nations seeking their region's nomination for a seat on the IAEA's decision-making 35-nation board.

Iran is running to counteract a U.S. push to have Afghanistan or outsider Kazakhstan elected over Syria, which is under IAEA investigation for allegedly hiding a secret nuclear program, including a nearly completed plutonium producing reactor destroyed last year by Israel.

If the regional group does not agree on a candidate by the time the conference turns to the issue, there will likely be a vote -- an unusual turn because these meetings normally decide by consensus.

But chief U.N nuclear inspector Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the IAEA, focused on more overriding nuclear concerns about Iran -- its refusal to suspend uranium enrichment and alleged past plans to develop the bomb.

On Saturday, the U.N. Security Council approved a resolution critical of Iran's defiance on uranium enrichment, which can create both nuclear fuel and the fissile core of warheads.

Urging it to "implement all transparency measures ... required to build confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of its nuclear program," ElBaradei declared: "This will be good for Iran, good for the Middle East region and good for the world."

He also warned the session that his organization was increasingly stretched in trying to carry out responsibilities including nonproliferation and preventing terrorists from acquiring the bomb.

"All is not well with the IAEA," ElBaradei declared, appealing for more money and authority for his agency.

Speaking for the EU, Luc Chatel of France called on Iran to "open the doors of its facilities, to give access to persons and documents, and to answer all the questions posed by (IAEA) inspectors."

The annual meeting allows the agency's member countries to set policies that range from strengthening nonproliferation to carrying on medical and scientific research. But tensions between Islamic members and the West threaten to hamper decision-making.

A tradition of consensus has normally led all sides to bridge sometimes substantial differences and opt for compromise for most of the conference's 52-year history. A vote on any topic is unusual and considered a huge dent in the meeting's credibility.

But frustration among Muslim countries over Israel's refusal to put its nuclear program under international purview, and resistance from the Jewish state to Muslim pressure on the issue, threatens to force a vote for the third year running.

As in the past two years, Muslim IAEA members are expected to put forward a resolution urging all Mideast nations to refrain from testing or developing nuclear arms and urging nuclear weapons states "to refrain from any action" hindering a Mideast nuclear-free zone.

After losing the vote two consecutive years, Islamic nations are threatening to up the ante this year, warning they will call for a ballot on every item, no matter how uncontroversial, unless they get conference backing on the Israeli nuclear issue.

Arab members -- backed by Iran -- this year have again asked conference organizers to include an item on Israel, this time labeled "Israeli Nuclear Capabilities" instead of "Nuclear Threat," as in previous years. That is being protested by Israel.

Focusing on Israel by name "is substantially unwarranted and flawed," said a letter prepared for review by the conference from Israel Michaeli, the Jewish state's IAEA representative.

Sponsors of the item should instead "address the most pressing proliferation concerns in the Middle East," the letter said, an allusion to Iran.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Sep 08 - 01:06 PM

Lethal pastries, BB. It's all about lethal pastries. Watch the Sleeping Croissant! Be afraid. Very afraid. Yes, there are vicious foreigners out there plotting to destroy the land you love, and they do not rest. They toil night and day with but one thought: "Destroy America!" Some are swarthy and have facial hair, but others are pink and nicely shaven and they look like they came from a Hansel and Gretel story. Ah! Those are the ones to really watch out for. They have WMDs hidden, BB, and they mean to use them on YOU. Scranton, Schenectady, and Albuquerque (did I spell that right?) are in extreme peril. Why will no one listen????

;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 Sep 08 - 01:25 PM

LH,

I suggest that you read "On the Beach" , "Level Seven", and "Alas, Babylon".


Then remember that all were written 40 years ago, or so, and that biological weapons have made great "advances". I don't think that any nation's "neutrality" is going to withstand the next major ( "World" ) war.

Estimated causualties of GTW would be 140,000,000 Americans and 20,000,000 Canadians dead within 60 days... similar numbers ( actually, higher percentage for Europe) for the rest of the world.

And those are the OPTIMISTIC estimates.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 Sep 08 - 01:28 PM

Oh, "A Canticle for Liebowitz" might also help...

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Sep 08 - 01:51 PM

I don't think that any nation's "neutrality" is going to withstand the next major ( "World" ) war either, BB.

However, I think that the next major world war, if it happens, is going to have been caused by the USA, through the very kind of political attitudes that you yourself are tacitly supporting.

In other words, I think the USA is the author of its own misfortunes...just as Germany, Italy, and Japan were in the 30's and 40's.

And I think you are unwittingly assisting a propaganda effort that leads in a disastrous direction. I think you are unwittingly assisting people who are leading their country into committing outright aggression and destabilizing the entire world, and thereby risking another world war.

It has happened before, and it quite likely will happen again, only this time the USA is going to be the major perpetrator.

People just don't get it. They always think their own country must be "the good guy". Well, countries change roles back and forth as the decades and centuries go by. They all get to be the honest defender sometimes. They all get to be the lawless aggressor at other times. But their people never see them as the lawless agressor when that happens. They believe the home propaganda.

You are one who believes the home propaganda. You're on the wrong side this time, BB, in this great struggle of nations. You (as a collective political nation) are the perpetrators of this dangerous situation in the world, not the innocent victims of it. You are not the defenders of liberty and freedom. You are not the defenders of democracy. You are not the defenders of international law and justice. You are the great aggressor nation of this present era...and you persist in accusing other much smaller nations of your own crimes and your own criminal intentions. And then you attack them.

That is the same technique Hitler used, and his people believed him. It's the Big Lie. The majority of any populace will always believe their own government when it tells them that some other country is to blame for a war starting. Always. It's the easiest thing in the world to make them believe it.

That's how your government is fooling you. You have not BEEN attacked militarily by any other government or any other nation. You ARE the attackers of other governments and nations, and you constantly threaten further such attacks.

In your case, the threats are very real ones, and the world knows it. In Hitler's case also, the threats were very real ones, and the world knew it. When superpowers threaten, they are foreshadowing what they intend to do. They are preparing the public mindset to support military action. When small powers threaten, they are simply doing what a frightened dog does...they are barking as loudly as they can to keep their own spirits up and hopefully to dissuade a potential attacker from attacking. They're bluffing.

The USA, like Hitler, does not have to bluff. It possesses enough lethal power to carry out its threats, and it has repeatedly demonstrated the will to do so. Israel, likewise, does not have to bluff, and never does, because it possesses enough lethal power to carry out a threat. Iranians are the people who have the most reason to fear the near future, because they are being threatened by the superpower, and the superpower does not utter idle threats. Nor does Israel. Israel has several hundred atomic weapons, and the means to deliver them to the target.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 Sep 08 - 02:04 PM

LH,

I agree with one of your points:

" Israel has several hundred atomic weapons, and the means to deliver them to the target. "

The problem is that I disagree with the rest- it will be a nation like Iran, or North Korea, that thinks it can use a WMD on its enemies and get away with it. ( Yes, I know that they would have to be crazy, but they are)

This will cause retaliation, and then further retaliation ( as China realizes that it no longer has access to oil from the Middle East, or Russia decides to settle a few more accounts [after all, the US did nothing in Georgia, why should it react to a bomb on Chechnya?])

NO ONE will want it to become world-wide- but look at 1914 and tell me that nations will not miscalculate the reactions of other nations.

The US HAS gone to the UN, and the US HAS allowed the EU to negotiate with Iran- Care to show me the results that would justify the risk that has now increased from 15 years away from a nuclear bomb to one year away?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Sep 08 - 03:15 PM

Yes, well, it's very convenient to say that your neighbour is "crazy" if you want justification for breaking into his house and committing premeditated murder on him, BB.

"I had to do it. He was crazy and he was out to get me."

Hitler probably thought the Poles were crazy too.

Your assumption that Iranian and North Korean leaders are "crazy" is convenient for your policy because it allows you not to treat them as you would treat normal human beings, but to merely exterminate them like rats or other vermin. It justifies planned aggression on your part.

It sounds a lot like the justifications Hitler used to exterminate Jews and various other people to me, in that it is a closed circle that defies logic or moral responsibility.

Did you know that the leader of Korea has a little sign on his desk as a constant reminder? It says (in Korean), "It's about survival, stupid!"

They are well aware of the risks, and I'm sure the Iranians are also.

North Korea wanted the bomb so that it would not BE attacked by a larger nation. That is why smaller nations want the bomb. They want it as a deterrent, so that they can negotiate from some position of relative equality rather than live like a beaten dog on its knees waiting for the ax to fall. That is why Pakistan wanted it too. None of them will ever use it unless they are simply at the final extremity of desperation, in my opinion, meaning: not until they are attacked in such a way as threatens their total defeat and annihilation.

Only he who has overwhelming firepower can dare to use the bomb first. That means primarily: the USA, Israel (in its own region), and Russia. Perhaps China.

They are the people who feel (relatively) free to use the ultimate weapon if they want to, because they think they can get away with it...under certain limited circumstances, such as hitting a nation like Iran which doesn't have it yet. They think they can get away with it, because no one will dare initiate full scale hostilities with them on that level.

And if they want to do it...well, it's simple. Just accuse the Iranians or someone small power of being "crazy", and you have your justification to commit genocide, don't you? And who can ever prove afterward whether or not the Iranians were in fact "crazy"? Or whether they ever would have done what you say they were thinking of doing? The dead cannot testify in their own defence, can they?

I agree with you that once even one nuke is used by anyone, all bets are off. It could lead to a succession of unpredictable reactions among different nations, and that could spiral into a world war. Undoutedly. So could a conventional war with Iran that does not involve any nukes. It's all very dangerous.


It works exactly like civil law, Bruce. You cannot just go and kill your neighbour, say "He was crazy, that's why I did it. He was planning to kill me, you see..." and expect the judge and the police to see it your way. They will arrest you and charge you with murder. They will also probably think you are crazy, and with considerable justification! Your lawyer may try an insanity plea, in fact, when you go to trial.

Unfortunately, the world has no higher authoritative courts or police structure who are able to arrest the USA or Russia or Israel if they commit such an attack. They are, in effect, a law unto themselves, merely because they are militarily powerful and no one can stop them if they decide to act.

That is the problem in a nutshell. We live in a lawless world. It pretends to have rule of law between nations, but that's a fiction. Just as in the time of Greece or Rome, naked power rules the affairs of nations. They quote international law when it suits their plan. They ignore it when it doesn't...or they cynically pretend to be upholding it even as they violate it.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 Sep 08 - 03:22 PM

"None of them will ever use it unless they are simply at the final extremity of desperation, in my opinion, meaning: not until they are attacked in such a way as threatens their total defeat and annihilation."


Not according to what Iran has stated.


As for the neighbor analogy, in my neighborhood, we are NOT allowed to have WMD or threaten to destroy our neighbors. If we do, we get hauled off to jail.

So, we can haul Iran off to jail?????

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Sep 08 - 03:50 PM

Mutual threats have been repeatedly hurled in all directions, BB, by Iran, the USA, and Israel. If it was a situation in a town the police would arrest ALL those making such threats. They would arrest the USA, Iran, and Israel, and put them all on trial for uttering death threats in an unlawful fashion.

They have all said, in effect, "if you do so-and-so...or if I think you might do it...I'm going to kill you". That is a death threat, and it's illegal in civil law. It should also be illegal in international law (and it is in fact), but there's no neutral authority to enforce that law.

You can't have a lawful town if there is no neutral police force to enforce the laws equally.

As for open assault, the USA has openly assaulted and invaded other nations with its armed forces. That is a far greater crime than merely uttering death threats.

To put it simply, if the Iranians behaved as you do (meaning the American government you support) you would THEN have adequate cause to be as upset about them as you seem to be. You would then have total justification for war (assuming you had the power to undertake it with any hope of success).

Look, if ANY nation acted like the USA does in launching "pre-emptive" wars (wars of choice) and was NOT a military superpower with greater firepower than anyone else in the world, then many other nations in the world would soon go to war against it and crush it (like they did Saddam in 1991). You don't seem to get that. Hitler didn't get it either. People like Hitler, Bush, Cheney, Saddam, Mussolini, Tojo, Stalin...they never get it. All they believe in, really, is "might makes right".

They are their own justification in their own eyes. Other people don't have to see it that way.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Sep 08 - 05:55 AM

Fine. The US will wait until after Iran uses the bomb on Israel, watch the entire Middle East go up in mushroom clouds, and then tell the EU and China it has to go to Russia for oil.

But I doubt that the remaining (alive) 30% of the world population will say that the UN had done its job...




And you ignore that Iran has violated its NPT obligations. To NOT enforce them is to say that there is no need for international agreements or consequences for violating them.

Next thing you know you'll be saying that it is OK that Canada exports asbestos in violation of UN laws....

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 30 Sep 08 - 07:24 AM

Bet on Israel bombing Iran
By Robert Baer

Monday, September 29th 2008, 8:44 AM

Are we going to have an October surprise, an attack on Iran by either the Bush administration or by Israel to stop the regime from becoming a nuclear power?

It could happen - and alter the dynamics of the presidential race in the blink of an eye - but only if Israel pulls the trigger. Don't expect the United States to drop bombs anytime soon. The reason: Iran has us over a barrel.

According to Britain's Guardian newspaper, Bush earlier this year nixed an Israeli plan to attack Iran's nuclear facilities. Reportedly, the President said no because we couldn't afford Iranian retaliation against our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan or Iran closing down Persian Gulf shipping. Nonetheless, cynical speculation is now swirling in some quarters that with the financial collapse working against McCain - and Bush's legacy coming into focus - the President might reconsider. Could that tail really wag the dog?

RELATED:AHMADINEJAD TELLS NEWS THERE ARE GAYS IN IRAN
Probably not. The fundamental global power dynamics have not changed. Iran has successfully blackmailed us. Iranian Silkworm missiles could close down Gulf oil exports in a matter of minutes, taking about 17 million barrels a day of oil off world markets. Americans could suddenly be looking at the prospect of $10-$12 for a gallon of gas. If the collapse of Wall Street doesn't push us into a depression, that would. And Bush is right: An angered Iran could punish us with thousands of extra casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan, as Iranian-trained, armed and funded fighters flow back into the war zones with a vengeance.

So, giving the go ahead to Israel would just not be worth it.

But none of this changes the fact that Israel - on its own, without U.S. complicity - is moving closer to a decision to attack Iran, almost by the day.

RELATED:A WAKEUP CALL ON IRAN'S NUKES
What many Americans miss is that Iran is a threat to Israel's very existence, not an imagined danger used by politicians for political advantage. Every Israeli city is within range of Iranian/Hezbollah rockets. To make matters worse, since the July 2006 34-day war, Hezbollah may have as much as trebled the number of rockets it has targeted on Israel.

Meantime, Hezbollah has become the de facto state in Lebanon. And lest we forget, Israel lost that July 2006 war to Hezbollah, pulling its troops out of Lebanon without having obtained a single objective. In other words, Israel no longer has its deterrence credibility, the fear that it can decisively retaliate against its enemies.

Israel knows that international diplomacy against Iran up until now has been a farce. Iran called Bush's bluff, ignored sanctions and continued its nuclear program with impunity. And if the Israelis needed another psychological kick in the pants, last week North Korea announced that it is back to building a bomb, likewise with impunity.

Finally, Israel has to calculate that American influence around the world is on the wane. Americans are tired of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And now, after the war in Georgia, Russia is opening up its flow of weapons to Iran.

Couple all of this with Israel's suspicion that Iran is within only a few short years of having a nuclear bomb, and Israel knows time is not on its side. It is starting to believe that it has no choice but to change its fortunes with arms.

This much is certain. Whether the President is named Bush, McCain or Obama, he will either have to prepare for war in the Gulf or find a way to bring Iran back into the nation-state system. The day of reckoning is near.

I myself think a deal can be cut with Iran. During the last 30 years, Iran has gone from a terrorist, revolutionary power to far more rational, calculating regional hegemon. Its belligerence today has more to do with a weakened United States and Israel than with any plans to start World War III.

The question is what price Iran would exact for a settlement. Or more to the point: Would we prefer to take our chances with an Israeli surprise?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 30 Sep 08 - 07:27 AM

Point of discussion: The terms of the Lebenon ceasefire ( UN brokered) were that

1. Israel would withdraw ( which it did)
2. Hezboallah would not be resupplied ( which it was)
3. Hezboallah would release the two Israelis kidnapped ( which they did not)


Now, WHY SHOULD ISRAEL pay any attention to the UN, which has demonstrated that it has no intention of standing behind its resolutions or agreements?????

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 07 Oct 08 - 12:20 PM

PLEASE note before comments that this was *NOT* a US Plane!





Iran Fighters Force Plane To Land

3:49pm UK, Tuesday October 07, 2008

Iranian news agencies sparked fears of an international stand-off by reporting that a US fighter jet had been forced to land after flying into their country's airspace.

Plane forced down by Iranian air force was a Falcon jet

Reports that the jet was a US warplane with military personnel on board were contradicted by other sources inside the country, which said its nationality was in fact Hungarian.

Reports said five people were interrogated, but allowed to leave the following day after it became clear their trespass into Iranian airspace had been a mistake.

They added that the interrogation revealed that they had strayed over the border unintentionally en route to Afghanistan.

However, the Pentagon denied that any of its aircraft were missing and it later emerged that the plane was a Falcon passenger jet.

The plane is said to have entered Iranian airspace from Turkey despite repeated warnings by the Islamic Republic Air Force.

Reports said the jet was flying low in an attempt to slip under Iranian radar before being made to touch down.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 07 Oct 08 - 02:48 PM

further on last story. Think maybe the Iranians are trying to get a reason to attack?????



From Times Online October 7, 2008

Iran creates international panic after claiming US plane violated airspace
(Seth Wenig)

An Iranian news agency sparked fears of an international standoff and left the Pentagon scrambling to identify its planes today after it reported that a US jet had strayed into its territory and been forced to land.

The semi-official Fars News Agency this afternoon said that five US military officials and three civilians were interrogated at an unnamed Iranian airport after accidentally straying into the Islamic Republic's airspace.

They were released after it was established that the plane had not entered the territory intentionally, the agency said, adding that it did not know when the incident had happened.

After hastily investigating the claims, however, the Pentagon poured scorn on them.

The US said that all of its planes in the Middle East had been identified and none had recently been missing or involved in any incident.

"According to the combined air operations centre, all our aircraft are accounted for and we have no reports of any aircraft landing in Iran," US Lieutenant Colonel Patrick Ryder said.

As the story unfolded, a senior Iranian military official told Iranian state television's Arabic-language channel Al-Alam that what was said to be a military jet was, in fact, a private Hungarian business aircraft and that no Americans were on board. It added that the incident dated back to September 30.

"The airplane is now being confirmed as a light transport plane with no Americans onboard," US military spokesman Lieutenant David Russell said.

"From what I am seeing, it was a Falcon business jet. We have accounted for all our aircraft and none are missing."

Tensions between Iran and the United States have been running high in recent years with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the hardline Iranian President, refusing to stop enriching uranium.

The US suspects Iran is trying to create nuclear weapons and the UN has imposed sanctions on Tehran. However, Iran says uranium enrichment is for energy use only.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 09 Oct 08 - 08:08 AM

Diplomats: NKorea bans UN staff from nuke complex

By GEORGE JAHN, Associated Press Writer
33 minutes ago



VIENNA, Austria - Diplomats say that North Korea has made all of its Yongbyon nuclear facilities off limits to international inspectors.

The diplomats say the North's decision was made recently but declined to offer details. The diplomats demanded anonymity Thursday because their information was confidential.

The reported move expands the area that the International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors are no longer allowed to monitor.

Pyongyang already barred agency personnel from its plutonium reprocessing facility at Yongbyon last month, when it made good on threats to restart its weapons-producing atomic program.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 09 Oct 08 - 11:24 AM

North Korea prepares to restart nuclear facility

By GEORGE JAHN, Associated Press Writer
19 minutes ago



VIENNA, Austria - North Korea announced Thursday that it is preparing to restart the facility that produced its atomic bomb, clearly indicating that it plans to completely pull out of an international deal to end its nuclear program.

North Korea told the International Atomic Energy Agency that it was stopping the process of disabling its main nuclear site and barring international inspectors from the Yongbyon facility, the agency said.

Pyongyang "informed IAEA inspectors that effective immediately access to facilities at Yongbyon would no longer be permitted," the U.N. nuclear watchdog said.

North Korea "also stated that it has stopped its (nuclear) disablement work," its statement said.

"Also, since it is preparing to restart the facilities at Yongbyon, the DPRK has informed the IAEA that our monitoring activites would no longer be appropriate," the statement said, referring to the north by its formal acronym.

But the statement said the IAEA's small inspection team would remain on the site until told otherwise by North Korean authorities.

Pyongyang already barred agency personnel from its plutonium reprocessing facility at Yongbyon last month after telling them to remove IAEA seals from the plant in a reversal of its pledge to disable its nuclear program in return for diplomatic concessions and offers of energy aid.

But Thursday's statement was the clearest indication to date that the North planned to abrogate the deal, said a senior diplomat linked to the IAEA who demanded anonymity because he was not authorized to comment to the media.

The North was to eventually dismantle the complex in return for diplomatic concessions and energy aid equivalent to 1 million tons of oil under a February 2007 deal with the U.S., South Korea, China, Russia and Japan.

But the accord hit a bump in mid-August when the U.S. refused to remove North Korea from its list of states that sponsor terrorism until the North accepts a plan for verifying a list of nuclear assets that the Pyongyang regime submitted to its negotiating partners earlier.

"Let's just wait and see over the next several days. We're reviewing the situation and I am talking to my colleagues and when we have an announcement, we'll have an announcement," U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told reporters in Washington when asked about the announcement.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbuce
Date: 09 Oct 08 - 12:57 PM

North Korea said to be deploying missiles

By Mark Heinrich and Jack Kim
1 hour, 12 minutes ago



VIENNA/SEOUL (Reuters) - North Korea deployed more than 10 missiles on its west coast apparently for an imminent test launch, a South Korean newspaper said on Thursday, and Pyongyang halted U.N. monitoring of its nuclear complex.

The potentially destabilizing moves followed reports that the United States had offered to remove North Korea from its terrorism blacklist this month in an effort to keep a nuclear disarmament pact from falling apart.

It would be an unprecedented test if North Korea fired all 10 of the surface-to-ship and ship-to-ship missiles. Intelligence sources quoted by the Chosun Ilbo paper said they thought the North may launch five to seven of them.

North Korea has forbidden ships to sail in an area in the Yellow Sea until October 15 in preparation for the launch, an intelligence source told the paper.

A South Korean defense ministry official declined to comment on the report but said the government had no indication of unusual activity in the North.

The United States urged North Korea not to do anything, including launching missiles, that would make matters worse. "We would urge North Korea to avoid any steps that increase tension on the peninsula," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said.

He said actions by Pyongyang in the last month had not been helpful, but added: "What they have done thus far is reversible. They can take a different set of decisions. We urge them to do so."

The halt to U.N. monitoring throughout the Yongbyon nuclear complex was a significant step toward scrapping the pact to dismantle its atomic bomb programed, officials and diplomats said at the U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna.

"The Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea) has today informed IAEA inspectors that effective immediately, access to facilities at Yongbyon would no longer be permitted," IAEA spokesman Marc Vidricaire said in a statement.

"The DPRK also stated that has stopped its disablement work, which was initially agreed upon within the Six-Party Talks," he said.

"Since it is preparing to restart the facilities at Yongbyon, the DPRK has informed the IAEA that our monitoring activities would no longer be appropriate. IAEA inspectors will remain in Yongbyon pending further information by the DPRK."

KOREAN NUCLEAR PLANS

Two weeks ago, the reclusive Stalinist state expelled the monitor team from Yongbyon's plutonium-producing plant, kernel of its atom bomb capability, and vowed to start reactivating the Soviet-era facility shortly.

At the time, Pyongyang let the IAEA continue verifying the shutdown status of other parts of Yongbyon. The IAEA's tools included surveillance cameras and seals placed on equipment.

Exactly two years ago, North Korea alarmed the world by conducting its first nuclear weapon test.

The pact appeared to unravel last month after Pyongyang, angry at not being removed from a U.S. blacklist of sponsors of terrorism, vowed to rebuild the largely dismantled Yongbyon.

North Korea has a history of timing its missile launches during periods of increased tension or negotiation to signal a hard line, analysts say.

U.S. nuclear envoy Christopher Hill visited Pyongyang last week in a bid to convince North Korea to return to a disarmament-for-aid deal and halt plans to restart an aging nuclear plant that makes bomb-grade plutonium.

Kyodo news agency, quoting unidentified Japanese government sources, said Hill agreed that Washington would not make verification of Pyongyang's uranium enrichment programed

or proliferation activities a condition of delisting.

The United States suspects North Korea has a parallel uranium enrichment programed in addition to its plutonium-producing reactor in Yongbyon and that it has proliferated nuclear technology to Syria.

The United States put North Korea on its list of state sponsors of terrorism for the 1987 midair bombing of a South Korean airliner over the Andaman Sea that killed 115 people.

Admiral Timothy Keating, commander of U.S. forces in the Pacific, said he had not seen any increased military activity in North Korea, "nor have we responded in any way with any military posture changes."

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 12:29 PM

The President Who Will Deal With Iran
By Michael Gerson
Friday, October 10, 2008; Page A19

A specter is haunting the presidential race -- and it is not just the economy. It is the specter of a nuclear Iran.

Economic downturns are wrenching but cyclical. Nuclear proliferation is more difficult to reverse, creating the permanent prospect of massive miscalculation and tragedy. America's next leader may be known to history as the president who had to deal with Iran.

This topic received glancing attention in the second presidential debate. Barack Obama called a nuclear Iran "unacceptable." John McCain said it would raise the prospect of "a second Holocaust." But neither man seriously confronted the choices ahead.

Days earlier, at an event at the Nixon Center here, the former chief weapons inspector for the United Nations, David Kay, delivered a bleak assessment of Iranian capabilities and intentions. The Iranian regime, he argues, is about 80 percent of the way toward its nuclear goals -- perhaps two to four years from "effective, deployable weapons."

Kay believes that the reaction to this threat by both political parties is unrealistic. By simply saying a nuclear Iran is unacceptable, America is set up for a choice between "suicide" (a disastrous military attack on Iran) and "humiliation" (a galling acceptance of the unacceptable). Instead, Kay calls for a new round of "skillful diplomacy" to persuade Iran to stop at what he calls "virtual capability" -- a global recognition that it could produce nuclear weapons in short order, without all the drawbacks caused by actually producing those weapons.


But this would be the third major attempt at diplomacy, not the first. Russia has offered Iran enriched nuclear material for use in its civilian nuclear plants in exchange for abandoning its fuel-enrichment program. Iran refused, demonstrating, at the least, that it wants the technical know-how -- the "breakout capability" -- to produce nuclear weapons. The Bush administration has offered direct, face-to-face talks with Iran if it would merely suspend (not abandon) its enrichment program. This also has been turned down. Another diplomatic effort -- perhaps offering normalized relations and the lifting of sanctions in exchange for Iran's full cooperation -- might further isolate Iran if it refuses the deal. But even many supporters of such an initiative admit that Iran is likely to refuse.

So Kay seems resigned to a policy of containment -- holding Iran directly responsible if it transfers nuclear weapons to terrorists, providing nuclear guarantees to our friends in the region so they don't feel pressured to develop their own. Past nuclear proliferation to nations such as France and India, he argues, proved less destabilizing than many first feared.

The problem with this approach? Iran may be a different proliferation threat from any we have faced before. The regime cultivates ties to violent nonstate proxies in Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan and the Palestinian territories. While in some ways calculating, its leaders also seem drawn toward dangerous terrorist adventures -- such as blowing up U.S. troops in Beirut or Jewish community centers in South America. Iran's religious radicalism introduces an unpredictable element of irrationality. And some future conflict between a nuclear Iran and a nuclear Israel could easily and quickly escalate.

What are the alternatives? Attempting to destabilize the Iranian regime from within -- by covert action and support for dissidents -- does not seem realistic on a four- or five-year timeline. American capabilities in this regard are limited, and Iranian repression of reformers is ruthless.

So if a nuclear Iran is truly unacceptable, we may be left with the use of military force. And this seems credible only under narrow circumstances. As Gary Samore, my colleague at the Council on Foreign Relations, points out, Iran can move from breakout capability to the development of nuclear weapons in only two ways. It can do the final enrichment of weapons-grade material at some secretly constructed facility with a few thousand hidden centrifuges -- a difficult and risky proposition. Or it can quickly convert its known centrifuges for such production. This would probably take a few weeks and require the expulsion of international inspectors. During this short time lag, Iran's intentions would be fully revealed, and the case for bombing its facilities would be strongest.

This may be the true test of the next president: a few days to make one of the most consequential decisions in modern history. It is difficult to imagine why anyone would covet the responsibility for that choice -- but it is necessary to discern who is best prepared to make it.

[e-mail]

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 19 Nov 08 - 07:29 PM

Iran increases stockpile of uranium
By Daniel Dombey in Washington and James Blitz in London

Published: November 19 2008 18:01 | Last updated: November 19 2008 23:00

Iran is forging ahead with its nuclear programme, the United Nations' nuclear watchdog reported on Wednesday, deepening the dilemma facing US president-elect Barack Obama over his campaign promise to engage with Tehran.

The latest report by the International Atomic Energy Agency reveals that Iran is rapidly increasing its stockpile of enriched uranium, which could be rendered into weapons-grade material should Tehran decide to develop a nuclear device.

Timeline: Iran's nuclear development -
Nov-19The agency says that, as of this month, Tehran had amassed 630kg of low enriched uranium hexafluoride, up from 480kg in late August. Analysts say Iran is enriching uranium at such a pace that, by early next year, it could reach break-out capacity – one step away from producing enough fissile material for a crude nuclear bomb.

"They are moving forward, they are not making diplomatic overtures, they are accumulating low enriched uranium," said Cliff Kupchan, an analyst at the Eurasia Group, a risk consultancy in Washington. "These guys are committed to their nuclear programme: if we didn't know that, they just told us again."

The IAEA report also says there has been a breakdown of communication between the agency and Iran over alleged research on an atomic weapon. "The Iranians are making good progress on enrichment but there is absolute stone-walling on past military activities," said Mark Fitzpatrick of the International institute for Strategic Studies. "It's very disappointing."

The progress chalked up by Iran increases the difficulties for Mr Obama, who campaigned on promises of talking to America's enemies, although during the election he scaled down his initial vow to meet Iran's leaders to a more general commitment to consider doing so if it advanced US interests.

"Obama faces a real dilemma," said the Eurasia Group's Mr Kupchan. "He must decide whether to pursue diplomacy quickly in light of rapid Iranian progress or whether to wait in the hope of a more moderate Iranian leadership after Iran's June presidential election."

European diplomats have responded favourably to Mr Obama's suggestion of US engagement with Iran, although they are keen to avoid unilateral US actions that would rip up the approach fashioned by the permanent five members of the UN Security Council and Germany.

IAEA officials said relations between the organisation and Iran had deteriorated so much there had been no contact between them for over two months, UN officials said on Wednesday.

"We had gridlock before but then at least we were talking to each other. Now it's worse. There is no communication whatsoever, no progress regarding possible military dimensions in their programme," a senior UN official said.

Ahead of Wednesday's report, Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad, the Iranian president, signalled that his country would press ahead with its nuclear program.

In a speech broadcast on TV, he said the US and its major allies wanted to deprive Iran of "honor and independence" by pressuring the country into halting its uranium enrichment work.

"Now the great powers are disappointed, as they have not the least bit of hope to break the Iranian people down," he said. "If great powers seek to take over Iran's rights, Iranian people will slap them so hard that they won't find their way back home."

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 20 Nov 08 - 06:27 AM

Iran Produces Enough Uranium to Build Nuclear Weapon
Thursday, November 20, 2008

Iran has now produced roughly enough nuclear material to make a single nuclear bomb, according to atomic experts analyzing the latest report from the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency, The New York Times reported Wednesday.

To date, Iran had enriched about 1,400 pounds of low-enriched uranium suitable for nuclear fuel, according to two confidential reports from the International Atomic Energy Agency that were obtained by The Associated Press.

Several experts told The Times the milestone was enough for a bomb, but Iran would have to further purify the uranium fuel and put it into a warhead design — a technical advance that experts in the West are unsure Iran has been able to achieve.

"They clearly have enough material for a bomb," Richard L. Garwin, a top nuclear physicist who helped invent the hydrogen bomb and has advised Washington for decades, told the newspaper. "They know how to do the enrichment. Whether they know how to design a bomb, well, that's another matter."

The report found the Islamic Republic was installing, or preparing to install, thousands more of the machines that spin uranium gas to enrich it — with the target of 9,000 centrifuges by next year.

The report on Iran — which also went to the U.N. Security Council — cautioned that Tehran's stonewalling meant the IAEA could not "provide credible assurances about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities." And it noted that the Islamic Republic continued to expand uranium enrichment, an activity that can make both nuclear fuel or fissile warhead material.

While that conclusion was expected, it was a formal confirmation of Iran's refusal to heed Security Council demands to freeze such activities, despite three sets of sanctions meant to force an enrichment stop.

Iran denies weapons ambitions, and Syria asserts the site hit more than a year ago by Israeli warplanes had no nuclear functions. But the two reports did little to dispel suspicions about either country.

The U.N. nuclear watchdog agency also said Wednesday that a Syrian site bombed by Israel in 2007 had the characteristics of a nuclear reactor.

The documents were being shared with the 35 nations on the IAEA's board.

On Syria, the agency also said that soil samples taken from the bombed site had a "significant number" of chemically processed natural uranium particles. A senior U.N official, who demanded anonymity because the information was restricted, said the findings were unusual for a facility that Syria alleges had no nuclear purpose.

The same official characterized U.N. attempts to elicit answers from Tehran on allegations that it had drafted plans for nuclear weapons programs as at a standstill.

The Syrian report said "it cannot be excluded" that the building destroyed in a remote stretch of the Syrian desert on Sept. 6, 2007, was "intended for non-nuclear use."

Still, "the features of the building ... are similar to what may be found in connection with a reactor site," it said, suggesting facility's size also fits that picture.

The report took note of Syrian assertions that any uranium particles found at the site must have come from Israeli missiles that hit the building, near the town of Al Kibar. And it cited Damascus officials as saying the IAEA samples contained only a "very limited number" of such particles.

But the report spoke of a "significant number of ... particles" found in the samples.

The senior U.N. official said "the onus of this investigation is on Syria" and noted that the traces were not of depleted uranium — the most commonly used variety of the metal in ammunition, meant to harden ordnance for increased penetration.

Satellite imagery made public in the wake of the Israeli attack noted that the Syrians subsequently removed substantial amounts of topsoil and entombed the building in concrete. But the report also suggested similar activities at three other Syrian sites of IAEA interest.

"Analysis of satellite imagery taken of these locations indicates that landscaping activities and the removal of large containers took place shortly after the agency's request for access," it said.

Beyond one visit in June to the Al Kibar site, Syria has refused IAEA requests to return to that location and examine the three other sites, citing the need to protect its military secrets.

In addition, said the report, "Syria has not yet provided the requested documentation" to back up its assertions that the bombed building was a non-nuclear military facility.

Iran denies such plans, saying it wants to enrich for a future large-scale civilian nuclear program. But suspicions have been compounded by its monthslong refusal to answer IAEA questions based on U.S., Israeli and other intelligence.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: goatfell
Date: 20 Nov 08 - 08:19 AM

or should that be the world

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Nov 08 - 02:25 PM

Iran has got an election in June. All the signs are that Ahmadinejad is liable to lose, because he's been doing a lousy job as president domestically. (Sounds familiar?)

His best chance of winning is if posturing by the outside world builds him up, and makes it feel unpatriotic to vote against him.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 09 Dec 08 - 03:16 PM

Dec 8, 2008 20:08 | Updated Dec 9, 2008 15:23
Report: Iran rocket arsenal tripled in 2008
By JPOST.COM STAFF


In a sign that Iran is taking military measures to ward off the threat of an attack on its nuclear facilities, the country has tripled the number of long-range rockets in its arsenal, Channel 10 reported on Monday.

According to the report, Iran possessed 30 Shihab-3 missiles at the beginning of 2008. Currently, the country claims to have over 100 over long-range missiles capable of hitting Israel.

While the ability of the Islamic Republic to strike any point in Israel has long been known, this latest build-up potentially points to an Iranian intent to launch a protracted counter-strike against those who seek to destroy its nuclear program.

The Jerusalem Post could not confirm the report.

Last summer, Iran held a massive missile exercise during which it claimed to have launched an improved version of the Shihab-3, known to have a range of 1,300 kilometers. The Iranian Fars News Agency Web site reported that the Shihab-3 had recently been equipped with an advanced guidance system that significantly improves the missile's accuracy and can correct its flight plan in midair.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 11 Dec 08 - 03:13 PM

Obama's atomic umbrella: U.S. nuclear strike if Iran nukes Israel

By Aluf Benn, Haaretz Correspondent

Tags: Iran, Nuclear, Barack Obama   

U.S. President-elect Barack Obama's administration will offer Israel a "nuclear umbrella" against the threat of a nuclear attack by Iran, a well-placed American source said earlier this week. The source, who is close to the new administration, said the U.S. will declare that an attack on Israel by Tehran would result in a devastating U.S. nuclear response against Iran.

But America's nuclear guarantee to Israel could also be interpreted as a sign the U.S. believes Iran will eventually acquire nuclear arms.
Secretary of state-designate Hillary Clinton had raised the idea of a nuclear guarantee to Israel during her campaign for the Democratic Party's nomination for the presidency. During a debate with Obama in April, Clinton said that Israel and Arab countries must be given "deterrent backing." She added, "Iran must know that an attack on Israel will draw a massive response."
Advertisement

Clinton also proposed that the American nuclear umbrella be extended to other countries in the region, like Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, if they agree to relinquish their own nuclear ambitions.

http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1045687.html

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 11 Dec 08 - 03:15 PM

more from above:

Obama said this week that he would negotiate with Iran and would offer economic incentives for Tehran to relinquish its nuclear program. He warned that if Iran refused the deal, he would act to intensify sanctions against the Islamic Republic.

Granting Israel a nuclear guarantee essentially suggests the U.S. is willing to come to terms with a nuclear Iran. For its part, Israel opposes any such development and similar opposition was voiced by officials in the outgoing Bush administration.

"What is the significance of such guarantee when it comes from those who hesitated to deal with a non-nuclear Iran?" asked a senior Israeli security source. "What kind of credibility would this [guarantee have] when Iran is nuclear-capable?"

The same source noted that the fact that there is talk about the possibility of a nuclear Iran undermines efforts to prevent Tehran from acquiring such arms.

A senior Bush administration source said that the proposal for an American nuclear umbrella for Israel was ridiculous and lacked credibility. "Who will convince the citizen in Kansas that the U.S. needs to get mixed up in a nuclear war because Haifa was bombed? And what is the point of an American response, after Israel's cities are destroyed in an Iranian nuclear strike?"

The current debate is taking place in light of the Military Intelligence assessment that Iran has passed beyond the point of no return, and has mastered the technology of uranium enrichment. The decision to proceed toward the development of nuclear arms is now purely a matter for Iran's leaders to decide. Intelligence assessments, however, suggest that the Iranians are trying to first accumulate larger quantities of fissile material, and this offers a window of opportunity for a last-ditch diplomatic effort to prevent an Iranian bomb.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Dec 08 - 06:00 PM

I do not really see what good Obama offering Israel this does. I would not imagine for a second that Iran would launch any sort of attack involving nuclear weapons that could be traced directly to Iran. That is too clear cut and they could not wriggle out of the terrible retribution that would come their way.

The danger in Iran's secret/covert/call-it-what-you-will nuclear weapons programme is that it is used to arm others and they carry out the attack. Two fairly small devices smuggled into the country and detonated in Haifa and Tel Aviv, no finger-prints, no smoking gun, nothing to connect the attack to any Sovereign State. Those who supported the attack can draw the international communities notice to the fact that their stockpiles remain intact, because the secret programme that created those weapons and the material to make them has not been totally transparent. They can prove and have it verified by the Russians, the Americans and whoever that no missiles were launched, no aircraft left their bases. So what is the reaction of the world going to be? Israel is already in ruins, bulk of the population dead. Collateral damage would also include a significant number of Palestinians dead, but those who direct and support the terror attacks on Israel from afar have never cared a toss about the lives of Palestinians, they will be regarded as being blessed and "in Paradise" as is the due of every true martyr. In such circumstances I can just imagine the degree of posturing that would be done internationally and the ever so sincere rationalising that would be argued in order to justify the fact that nothing will be done, the UN would settle upon setting up another totally ineffective and impotent Hariri type enquiry under threat of Security Council Veto by France, Russia and China, for anything more forceful.

The only way that the US offer of protection against a nuclear strike, once Iran had acquired a weapon would be to state loud and clear that it was now in Iran's best interest to make absolutely certain that nothing was ever launched at Israel ever again, otherwise on detection of launch, or in the event of an explosion within Israel's borders, Iran would be held responsible and attacked. Maybe then Hezbollah might have to return some of the 40,000 rockets to Tehran, and then maybe the material to make the Kassam's would not be smuggled through the tunnels into Gaza.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 17 Dec 08 - 05:43 PM

Israel issues new warning on Iranian nuclear arms

Dec 17 03:26 PM US/Eastern


JERUSALEM (AP) - Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak is warning that if Iran acquires a nuclear weapon, it could try to attack the United States.
Barak said the world should press Iran to stop it from building nuclear weapons.

He spoke at a conference of the Institute for National Security Studies at Tel Aviv University. He said, "If it built even a primitive nuclear weapon like the type that destroyed Hiroshima, Iran would not hesitate to load it on a ship, arm it with a detonator operated by GPS and sail it into a vital port on the east coast of North America."

Indicating the possibility of a military strike, Barak said, "We recommend to the world not to take any option off the table, and we mean what we say."

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Feb 09 - 10:15 AM

For the sake of Bobert and others that may not understand what "ORBIT" means, a spacecraft that can reach orbit is capable of hitting anywhere on the Earth's surface...

"George Bush- 5300 miles away" In range of an orbiting spacecraft

"Dick Cheney- 5300 miles away" In range of an orbiting spacecraft

"Teribus- 2700 miles away" In range of an orbiting spacecraft

"BB- 5300 miles away" In range of an orbiting spacecraft

"Saws- +- 5300 miles away" In range of an orbiting spacecraft





Iran says it sent own satellite into orbit
AP - Tuesday, February 03, 2009 7:40:14 AM
By NASSER KARIMI

APIran has successfully sent its first domestically made satellite into orbit, the country's president announced Tuesday, claiming a significant step in an ambitious space program that has worried many international observers.

The satellite, called Omid, or hope in Farsi, was launched late Monday after President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad gave the order to proceed, according to a report on state radio. State television showed footage of what it said was the nighttime liftoff of the rocket carrying the satellite at an unidentified location in Iran.

The reports were not immediately verified by outside observers. Some Western observers have accused Tehran of exaggerating the capabilities of its space program.

Iran has long held the goal of developing a space program, generating unease among world leaders already concerned about its nuclear and ballistic missile programs. One of the worries associated with Iran's fledgling space program is that the same technology used to put satellites into space can also be used to deliver warheads.

The United States and some of its allies suspect Iran is pursuing a covert nuclear program. Iran denies the charge, saying its atomic work is only for peaceful purposes such as power generation.

Ahmadinejad said Tuesday that the satellite, which he said had telecommunications capabilities, had reached its orbit and had made contact with ground stations, though not all of its functions were active yet. The launch was intended to be a message of peace and friendship to the world, Ahmadinejad told state television. "We need science for friendship, brotherhood and justice," he said.

The announcement of the Omid's launch came as officials from the U.S., Russia, Britain, France, Germany and China were set to meet Wednesday near Frankfurt to talk about Iran's nuclear program.

The group has offered Iran a package of incentives if it suspends uranium enrichment and enters into talks on its nuclear program. The U.N. Security Council has imposed sanctions to pressure Iran to comply.

Iranian television said the satellite would orbit at an altitude of between 155 and 250 miles (250 and 400 kilometers). It was taken into orbit by a Safir-2, or ambassador-2, rocket, which was first tested in August and has a range of 155 miles (250 kilometers).

The radio report said the satellite is designed to circle the earth 15 times during a 24-hour period and send reports to the space center in Iran. It has two frequency bands and eight antennas for transmitting data.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Musket
Date: 03 Feb 09 - 10:40 AM

3/1 North Korea

2/1 Syria

2/1 Iran

2/1 France

Evens bar

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 Feb 09 - 11:42 AM

New Launch: 2009 February 2, 1836 UTC
Site: Semnan Satellite Launch Site, Iran
Launcher: Safir 2
International Designators(s): 2009-004A

SSC Name Owner
33506 OMID IRAN


"Iran launched its first satellite into orbit Monday using a modified homemade long-range missile, thrusting the Islamic republic into an elite club of space-faring nations, state media reported.

"The small Omid communications satellite was launched Monday evening aboard a Safir 2 rocket, the official Islamic Republic News Agency reported.

"Launch was likely around 1830 GMT [our analysis shows it closer to 1836 UTC], or around 10 p.m. Iran time, according to Jonathan McDowell, an astrophysicist who provides satellite data on the Internet.

"Iran did not release the launch time in state news reports.

"The 72-foot-tall Safir 2 rocket probably blasted off from a launch site in Iran's Semnan province in the north-central part of the country [Google Earth file].

"The launcher flew southeast over the Indian Ocean to avoid flying over neighboring countries, according to Charles Vick, senior fellow at GlobalSecurity.org, a Washington-based military think tank.

"Two objects from the launch, likely the Omid satellite and part of its booster, are circling Earth in oval-shaped [sic] orbits.

"The orbits range in altitude from low points of 153 miles [246 km] to high points of 235 miles [378 km] and 273 miles [439 km]. The orbital inclination is 55.5 degrees, according to U.S. military tracking data.

"Iran joins a small group of countries with the ability to build and launch their own satellites into orbit."

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Feb 09 - 12:16 PM

Funny....this is at least the second time the "News" media have reported the FIRST launch of an Iranina satellite! ;-) Here's a report from the BBC News on Thursday, 27 October 2005:

Iran's previous "first time" in space....

First Iranian satellite launched

The Iranian satellite was joined by others from China and Europe
Iran launched its first satellite into space from Plesetsk in northern Russia on Thursday, joining a select club of countries.
A joint project between Iran and Russia, the Sina-1 satellite will be used to take pictures of Iran and to monitor natural disasters.

It blasted off aboard a Russian Kosmos 3M rocket early on Thursday morning.

The satellite was built for Iran by Polyot, a Russian company based in the Siberian city of Omsk.

Director General of Iran Electronic Industries Ebrahim Mahmoudzadeh said Sina-1 was the result of years of research and 32 months of construction.

Research activities

Mr Mahmoudzadeh said the $15m research satellite would contain a telecommunications system and cameras that would be used for monitoring Iran's agriculture and natural resources.

It could also be deployed after disasters such as earthquakes.

He stressed, however, that the satellite represents only the first step in Iran's space programme.

"Considering that the satellite weights 170kg and is carrying a camera, it is an initial model as far as technical know-how and experience are concerned."

The launch had initially been scheduled for the end of September, but problems with the Iranian satellite forced a delay.

Iran's former defence minister, Admiral Ali Shamkhani, unveiled his country's space programme in 1998.

The launch makes Iran the 43rd country to possess its own satellites.

Sina-1 shared the ride with other satellites from China, Russia and Europe.


*************

You know what? Much of our so-called "news" is little more than calculated propaganda, designed and timed to produce an impression in people's minds. There appears to be an effort underway right now to scare people by making them think Iran just now entered space for the first time. Not so. They entered space back in October 2005, according to the BBC.

When is "the News" really the News, and when is it just a PR exercise?

BB, they have been ready to drop an A-bomb on YOU from space ever since October 2005! And I know how much you love and trust the Russians too. ;-) Dear, dear, it's all so scary! Better launch a pre-emptive strike while there's still time, right? (Mass murder is always justifiable if we are the ones who contemplate doing it...because we are GOOD people and our way of life is the best.)

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 Feb 09 - 12:30 PM

LH,

As often is the case, you do not pay attention to the details.

"First Iranian satellite launched "

The 2005 launch was on a launch vehicle (Russian Kosmos 3M ) from Russia, and it was the first Iranian SATELLITE to be launched.



"Iran launched its first satellite into orbit Monday using a modified homemade long-range missile"

This launch was on an Iranian launch vehicle, thus it was the first launched BY IRAN.


If this is confusing to you, how do you expect to make any judgements at all about the relative hazards and risks of either the Iranian space or nuclear programs?



"BB, they have been ready to drop an A-bomb on YOU from space ever since October 2005! And I know how much you love and trust the Russians too. "

No, since the Russians are sane enough ( I think ) NOT to allow a warhead to be launched on their booster ( unless they do it themselves).


Better start looking up- the N. Koreans are testing a launch vehicle that can reach Canada. THEY might put a live warhead on it, just to see if it works.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 Feb 09 - 12:33 PM

Oh, since AMSATs have been up for years, you would claim that the Ham operators of the world have their own ICBMs???

*** I *** can build a satellite- ( actually, a launch vehicle, too) but I do not have an active program to produce weapons grade fissionable material at the present time.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 05 Feb 09 - 02:36 PM

Since the government of Israel has announced its intention to attack Iran within the next year, and in light of it's previous history, I think it's safe to say that it's the government of Israel that is not sane, and they are the ones of whom we should be afraid. It seems to me this current push to make Iran look imminently dangerous is just another attempt to soften the world up for Israel's upcoming attack on that country.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 09:49 AM

Washington Post


A Missile for Mr. Obama
North Korea is calling, Mr. President.
Monday, February 9, 2009; Page A16

IT HASN'T been easy for foreign governments to command the attention of the Obama administration in its opening days, but North Korea is doing its best. Last week, the secretive Stalinist regime was spotted transporting what looked like a Taepodong-2 missile toward a launch site. In theory, the rocket has a range of more than 4,000 miles, which would allow it to reach Alaska. In trotting it out, Pyongyang is transparently threatening to violate U.N. resolutions by conducting its first flight test since 2006. This follows a steadily escalating series of provocations by the North toward South Korea, including the repudiation of past non-aggression agreements and a threat of "all-out confrontation."

The attention-getting behavior may look infantile, but from the North's point of view it is quite logical. Time and again in the past decade, dictator Kim Jong Il has manufactured a crisis by testing missiles or a nuclear weapon, taking steps to produce bomb-grade plutonium, or expelling international inspectors. In most instances he has been rewarded with diplomatic attention and bribes of food and energy from South Korea, the United States, China and other nations, in exchange for reversing or freezing the actions. The Bush administration took office eight years ago declaring it would not condone such payoffs. It meekly ended, in October, by bribing Mr. Kim to reverse steps toward resuming plutonium reprocessing.

The mess inherited by the Obama administration is considerably worse than that encountered by President Bush. North Korea recently declared that it has weaponized its entire declared stock of plutonium, which if true means it has five or six nuclear weapons. In theory, the Bush administration won Mr. Kim's commitment to give up this stockpile in a step-by-step process in exchange for economic and diplomatic favors. In practice, Pyongyang's behavior never changed: While reneging or cheating on its own commitments, it used brinkmanship to extract concession after concession from Washington.

The Obama administration now will have to determine whether and how it can revive the broken disarmament process. (Curiously, it has reportedly decided to appoint the architect of that failure, Christopher R. Hill, as ambassador to Iraq, though he lacks Middle East experience and doesn't speak Arabic.) But first it will have to answer a more fundamental question: Will it, too, respond to North Korean missile tests and war threats with attention and bribes? The State Department took a step in the right direction on Thursday by announcing a trip by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton to South Korea, Japan, China and Indonesia this month -- while omitting North Korea from the list of issues she would focus on. If there's one lesson to be learned from the past decade, it's that rewarding the North's provocations will only ensure more of them -- and that while that strategy works, the regime will not take genuine steps toward disarmament.

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

I think Iran deserves some respect for orbiting last week. Iran is a much more complicated country than is usually acknowledged in the US media, and its hideous Islamic overlay of a government must inevitably be thrown off by a sophisticated populace which may involve some brinksmanship, but I think the likelihood that they will encourage an attack from Israel by themselves attacking Israel is lower than the other menace I mention below.

CarolC's assertions regarding Israel's plans are ludicrous, if not hysterical. Israel orbited in 1982 and has managed to avoid using her ability to send up satellites as a means to deliver weapons from that time to this.

There are many uses of satellites other than as weapons. Using satellites to aide communications and collect information from the ground is, I think, more conducive to peace than war.

As to the query at the head of this thread, I currently think the answer is: Pakistan. If the Obama administration is going to try to 'win' in Afghanistan, it will require effective penetration of Pashtun lands which cross borders and which even Pakistan has not been able to make much headway in, this will involve Pakistani territory and will challenge the stability of Pakistan. In seven, going on eight years of US involvement in Afghanistan we have not yet succeeded and don't exactly see a clear path to success. So Pakistan will inevitably get involved and disaster is entirely possible. We don't have the ability to take on Iran or Korea at the same time, and in the case of Korea, Japan and China have more to fear than ourselves (not to mention SOUTH Korea).

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Feb 09 - 05:51 AM

Actually, one of the nations highest on the list is Mexico.

Over 8,000 killed in Baja California by drug lords...

Anyone care to remember 1915?


But those 8,000 civilians were not killed by Jews, so there will be no moaning or demonstrations or demands for the removal of the Mexican government.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Feb 09 - 06:40 AM

The large and important states of Mexico and Pakistan are ripe for "a rapid and sudden collapse," says a startling new report on worldwide security threats issued by the U.S. Joint Forces Command. While Mexico destabilization may seem less likely to the public, the report explains, the sustained assaults by drug cartels severely affect government, police and judicial systems. Should Mexico descend into chaos, U.S. homeland security would require immediate response.
Mexico's descent into "failed state" status is of special concern to the U.S.-Mexico border region. The El Paso Times consulted expert Brig. Gen. Jose Piojas, the executive director of the National Center for Border Security and Immigration, who noted the state of flux in Mexican conditions even over the last nine months. In an equally dangerous worst-case scenario, the military report also considered the rapid collapse of Pakistan, which carries with it the threat of nuclear war.
Based in Norfolk VA, the Joint Forces Command is a combat command of the Defense Department, which includes different military service branches, both active and reserves, and functions to transform the military's capabilities. While no one can predict the future, it tries to forecast the future to keep the U.S. prepared for potential emergencies. It's "Joint Operating Environment (JOE 2008)" report puts Pakistan and Mexico on the same level insofar as it assesses global threats and future wars.
U.S. drug czar Barry McCaffrey issued a similar evaluation of Mexico's security problems recently. Drug violence and corruption in Mexico are two major factors affecting its stability.
In response, Mexican President Felipe Calderón advised embassy and consular officials to promote a positive image of Mexico. He met this week with U.S. officials, including President-elect Barack Obama, to advocate for an end to gun running and smuggling of arms from the U.S. into Mexico.

Joint Operating Environment (Report JOE 2008) PDF HERE

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Feb 09 - 08:37 AM

900!
Oh yes.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Feb 09 - 09:46 AM

Cyprus: Detained ship broke Iran arms export ban
         

Menelaos Hadjicostis, Associated Press Writer – 24 mins ago

NICOSIA, Cyprus – A ship detained off Cyprus has breached a U.N. ban on Iranian arms exports, Cyprus' foreign minister said Tuesday.

But Markos Kyprianou refused to specify what had been found on the Cypriot-flagged Monchegorsk, which U.S. officials suspect was delivering arms to Hamas militants in Gaza.

Kyprianou said Cyprus will decide what to do with the cargo once the search of all containers aboard the ship is completed.

Cyprus inspected the Monchegorsk twice after it arrived Jan. 29 under suspicion of ferrying weapons from Iran to Hamas fighters in Gaza. It remains anchored off the port of Limassol under tight security.

Returning the shipment to Iran has been ruled out, but Kyprianou said possible options include confiscating and storing it in Cyprus or another country.

Last week, Cyprus applied for and received guidance from the U.N. Security Council Sanctions Committee on whether the cargo breached sanctions barring Iran from sending arms abroad.

The committee was established in December 2006 to oversee a Security Council-imposed embargo on Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile programs, an export ban on arms and related material, and individual targeted sanctions including travel bans and an assets freeze.

Iran has denied accusations it is trying to build nuclear weapons, saying its nuclear program is geared toward generating electricity.

Kyprianou said Cyprus would "turn to friends" for help if authorities decide against storing the Monchegorsk's cargo on the island.

Britain's Minister for Europe Caroline Flint, who is visiting Cyprus, said her country is ready to help.

"My understanding is that Cypriot authorities are looking into what the situation is, what is the specifications on these weapons that are there," Flint said after talks with Kyprianou.

"And I think when we have a better report of that, the U.K. and I'm sure other countries will want to help in whatever way we can to make sure that they are disposed of effectively."

The U.S. military stopped the ship last month in the Red Sea, and said it found artillery shells and other arms on board. But it could not legally detain the ship, which continued to Port Said, Egypt, and then to Cyprus.

U.S. officials had said the ship was headed for Syria.

Israel launched a 22-day offensive late last month on Hamas-controlled Gaza to try to end militant rocket fire on Israelis and to halt the smuggling of arms into the Palestinian territory.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: robomatic
Date: 10 Feb 09 - 10:46 AM

BB:

Mexico is probably TOO close for us to deal with. Our little involvement in 1915 was pretty unsuccessful, if I'm thinking of the same thing you are. It was interesting as we used Wright aircraft for spotting, maybe first military use of aircraft in history, and George Patton as a young product of West Point, experienced some action. Otherwise it was not fruitful. In the end, the United States supplied Juarez on the Q T, and let him do his thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Sawzaw
Date: 13 Feb 09 - 11:06 PM

"It seems to me this current push to make Iran look imminently dangerous is just another attempt to soften the world up for Israel's upcoming attack on that country."

Press freedom watchdog says Iran curtailing press freedoms February 10, 2009

Washington, 10 February (IranVNC)â€"In a survey released today, the New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists [CPJ] accused the Iranian government of curtailing press freedoms and trying to reassert control over the media.

The report, entitled "Attacks on the Press in 2008", also says Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has used state subsidies as a "weapon" against newspapers and magazines that are critical of his government.

"Ahmadinejad sought to suppress independent media by manipulating government subsidies, exerting censorship, and using the punitive tools of detention and harassment," the report says.

Noting that Iran’s economy is largely government-based, and that publications heavily rely on ad revenue from state-owned companies, CPJ said that Ahmadinejad’s administration urged government institutions to withhold advertising from critical publications.

The Aftab Yazd daily said it faced a 60 percent drop in state subsidies after it was identified in a 2007 government report as a leading government critic, the survey reports.

The CPJ, a nonprofit organization that promotes press freedom worldwide, reports that more than 30 Iranian journalists were investigated or jailed during 2008. Many of those were denied basic rights in prisons or subject to secret trials without access to defense attorneys, the group claims.

Those imprisoned included Mohammad Seddiq Kaboudvand, the head of the Human Rights Organization of Kurdistan, and Mojtaba Lotfi, a blogger who was sentenced to four years in prison in November on anti-state charges, CPJ reports.

In addition, Iranian authorities continued to crack down on Kurdish, Azeri and Arabic-language publications, along with journalists who tried to cover the government’s treatment of ethnic minorities, the report said.

"Journalists defending women’s rights faced a particularly strong backlash from the government," CPJ reports, adding that at least seven women’s rights writers were summoned to court during 2008.

In anticipation of the June 2009 presidential election, the Iranian government is also stepping up its Internet censorship, the press freedom group reports.

"The government issued regular bulletins to Internet service providers, identifying critical news, politics, women’s rights, and human rights sites to block," the survey said.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Feb 09 - 07:02 AM

Washington Post

Living With A Nuclear North Korea
By Selig S. Harrison
Tuesday, February 17, 2009; Page A13

Will North Korea ever give up its nuclear weapons?

To test its intentions, I submitted a detailed proposal to Foreign Ministry nuclear negotiator Li Gun for a "grand bargain" in advance of a visit to Pyongyang last month. North Korea, I suggested, would surrender to the International Atomic Energy Agency the 68 pounds of plutonium it has already declared in denuclearization negotiations. In return, the United States would conclude a peace treaty formally ending the Korean War, normalize diplomatic and economic relations, put food and energy aid on a long-term basis, and support large-scale multilateral credits for rehabilitation of North Korea's economic infrastructure.

The North's rebuff was categorical and explicit. Its declared plutonium has "already been weaponized," I was told repeatedly during 10 hours of discussions. Pyongyang is ready to rule out the development of additional nuclear weapons in future negotiations, but when, and whether, it will give up its existing arsenal depends on how relations with Washington evolve.

Sixty-eight pounds of plutonium is enough to make four or five nuclear weapons, depending on the grade of plutonium, the specific weapons design and the desired explosive yield. Li Gun would not define "weaponized," despite repeated questions, but Gen. Ri Chan Bok, a spokesman of the National Defense Commission, implied that it refers to the development of missile warheads.

Faced with this new hard line, the United States should choose between two approaches, benign neglect and limiting the North's arsenal to four or five weapons.

Benign neglect would mean a suspension of ongoing efforts to denuclearize North Korea by providing economic incentives and moving toward normalized relations. But it would also mean avoiding the hostile policies initially pursued by the Bush administration with their implicit goal of "regime change."

The strongest argument for this approach is that the United States has nothing to fear from a nuclear North Korea. Pyongyang developed nuclear weapons for defensive reasons, to counter a feared U.S. preemptive strike, and U.S. nuclear capabilities in the Pacific will deter any potential nuclear threat from the North.

The purpose of this strategy would be to end the present bargaining relationship in which Pyongyang uses its nuclear program to extract U.S. concessions. It would be risky, though, because Pyongyang could well react with provocative moves to make sure that it is not neglected.

Under the second approach, the six-party denuclearization negotiations would be continued with the goal of limiting North Korean nuclear weapons to the four or five warheads so far acknowledged. This would require, first, U.S.-orchestrated arrangements to provide the 200,000 tons of heavy fuel oil that have been promised but not yet delivered to North Korea in return for its disabling the Yongbyon plutonium reactor, and, second, negotiating the terms for dismantling the reactor so that additional plutonium cannot be reprocessed.

The terms outlined to me in Pyongyang for dismantling the reactor are much tougher than those hitherto presented: completing the two light-water reactors started during the Clinton administration and conducting the broadened verification process envisaged by the United States, China, Russia, Japan, South Korea and North Korea in a statement last July. This could require inspections of U.S. bases in South Korea to verify that the United States has removed its nuclear weapons, as announced in 1991, in parallel with inspections of North Korean nonmilitary nuclear installations. The inspections in North Korea would include taking samples at suspected nuclear waste sites, a key U.S. demand, but the "weaponized" plutonium would not be open to inspection.

While in Pyongyang, I found evidence that the hard-line shift in the North's posture is directly related to Kim Jong Il's health. Informed sources told me that Kim had suffered a stroke in August. While still making "key decisions," he has turned over day-to-day authority in domestic affairs to his brother-in-law, Chang Song Taek, and effective control over national security affairs to the National Defense Commission. I was not permitted to see several key Foreign Ministry officials identified with flexible approaches to the denuclearization negotiations whom I have regularly seen in previous trips.

The bottom line is that there is a continuing policy struggle in Pyongyang between the hard-liners in the National Defense Commission and pragmatists who want normalization with the United States. Continued U.S. engagement with North Korea leading progressively to economic and political normalization would strengthen the pragmatists.

If the United States can deal with major nuclear weapons states such as China and Russia, it can tolerate a nuclear-armed North Korea that may or may not actually have the weapons arsenal it claims. Just in case Pyongyang has, in fact, learned to miniaturize nuclear warheads sufficiently to make long-range missiles, the Obama administration should couple a resumption of denuclearization negotiations with a revival of the promising missile limitation negotiations that the Clinton administration was about to conclude when it left office. "If we can have nuclear negotiations," said negotiator Li Gun, "why not missile negotiations?"

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Feb 09 - 08:13 AM

Clinton warns against N. Korean missile launch


Story Highlights
Clinton: Missile launch "would be very unhelpful in moving our relationship forward"

U.S. officials say evidence shows N. Korea preparing long-range missile launch

North Korean officials dispute claim, saying state preparing to launch a satellite

Hillary Clinton bypassing Europe, heading for Asia, on first trip as secretary of state


From Jill Dougherty
CNN
   
TOKYO, Japan (CNN) -- U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made her strongest comments yet about North Korea Tuesday during her tour of Asia.

Speaking at a news conference with Japanese Foreign Minister Hirofumi Nakasone, the U.S. secretary warned that a possible North Korean missile launch "would be very unhelpful in moving our relationship forward." Clinton said the U.S. is "watching very closely" actions by North Korea.

U.S. officials recently said they obtained evidence that North Korea was gearing up for a launch of a long-range missile.

North Korean officials disputed the claim, saying in the country's official news agency that North Korea was preparing to launch a satellite.

Clinton also said Tuesday that there is a possibility that the relationship between the U.S. and North Korea could improve if North Korea abides by the obligations that it has already entered into and verifiably and completely eliminates its nuclear program.

If that happens, there is "a chance to normalize relations, to enter into a peace treaty rather than an armistice and to expect assistance for the people of North Korea," she said.

Clinton left for Asia Sunday on her first overseas trip as secretary of state and is slated to also travel to China, South Korea and Indonesia to discuss a range of issues, including mutual economic recovery, trade, the prevention of nuclear weapons proliferation and reversing global warning. Watch what issues Clinton will focus on during her tour »

Her trip represents a departure from a diplomatic tradition under which the first overseas trip by the secretary of state in a new administration is to Europe.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Feb 09 - 08:14 AM

N. Korea preps for satellite launch amid 'space development' claim

Story Highlights
U.S. satellite captured images of launch preparations, senior official said

North Korea's explanation cryptic: "One will come to know later what will be launched"

Country's right to "space development" rejected by South Korea

   
(CNN) -- Denying recent intelligence suggesting it is preparing to test a long-range missile, North Korea signaled Monday it is gearing up to launch a satellite, according to South Korea's Yonhap news agency.

A senior U.S. official told CNN last week that an American spy satellite had snapped an image of preparations at a North Korean site previously used to launch Taepodong-2 missiles.

The photograph shows North Korea assembling telemetry equipment involving sophisticated electronics used to monitor missile launches, the official said, adding there was no direct evidence that a missile was being moved to the launch pad.

North Korea's official Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) said Monday it will go ahead with its "space development" program, Yonhap said, adding that the report is a possible message to Washington ahead of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's visit to Seoul, South Korea, this week. Watch Hillary Clinton board her flight to Asia »

"One will come to know later what will be launched in the DPRK [Democratic People's Republic of Korea]," KCNA said, according to Yonhap, but it denied a missile test is planned. "Space development is the independent right of the DPRK and the requirement of the developing reality," KCNA said, calling outside reports a "vicious trick" aimed at stopping the nation's sovereign activity, Yonhap reported.

The reclusive North Korean regime made a similar claim after launching a rocket in 1998, saying it succeeded in putting a satellite into orbit, Yonhap said.

U.S. intelligence officials initially said after the August 1998 test that North Korea launched a two-stage Taepodong-1 missile, but later said it was a three-stage missile, and the third stage broke up in an unsuccessful attempt to put a small satellite into orbit.

South Korea rejected the North Korean claim that it has a right to space development, with Foreign Minister Yu Myung-hwan saying at a parliamentary session, "Whether it is a missile or a satellite, [a launch] would constitute a violation of the U.N. Security Council's Resolution 1718," Yonhap reported Monday.

That resolution, adopted in October 2006, imposed sanctions against North Korea -- and demanded it stop nuclear activity and missile testing -- after it launched a Taepodong-2 long-range ballistic missile. The missile failed 40 seconds after launch, but the Taepodong-2 is believed to have an intended range of about 2,500 miles (about 4,025 kilometers), making it capable of striking Alaska.

Asked about the matter last week, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates would only say, "Well, since the first time that they launched the missile it flew for a few minutes before crashing, the range of the Taepodong-2 remains to be seen. So far, it's very short. I'm not going to get into intelligence reports, but it would be nice if North Korea would focus on getting positive messages across ... to its negotiating partners about verification and moving forward with the denuclearization."

North Korea has been involved on and off in what is known as the six-party talks with the United States, China, Russia, South Korea and Japan.

Clinton left for Asia on Sunday on her first overseas trip as secretary of state, and is scheduled to travel to Japan, China, South Korea and Indonesia to discuss a range of issues, including mutual economic recovery, trade, the prevention of nuclear weapons proliferation and reversing global warning. Her trip represents a departure from a diplomatic tradition under which the first overseas trip by the secretary of state of a new administration is to Europe.

Speaking at the New York-based Asia Society before her departure, Clinton called North Korea's nuclear program "the most acute challenge to stability in northeast Asia."

She said the Obama administration is prepared to seek a permanent, stable peace with Pyongyang so long as its regime pursues disarmament and does not engage in aggression against South Korea.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,MV
Date: 18 Feb 09 - 05:39 AM

I think there's going to be more war in the middle east coming up so Iran. A likely cause would be some kind of attack on Israel either genuine or set up by the powers that be.

MV

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 19 Feb 09 - 09:15 PM

Iran holds enough uranium for bomb
By Daniel Dombey in Washington

Published: February 19 2009 21:18 | Last updated: February 20 2009 00:51

Iran has built up a stockpile of enough enriched uranium for one nuclear bomb, United Nations officials acknowledged on Thursday.

In a development that comes as the Obama administration is drawing up its policy on negotiations with Tehran over its nuclear programme, UN officials said Iran had produced more nuclear material than previously thought.


They said Iran had accumulated more than one tonne of low enriched uranium hexafluoride at a facility in Natanz.

If such a quantity were further enriched it could produce more than 20kg of fissile material – enough for a bomb.

"It appears that Iran has walked right up to the threshold of having enough low enriched uranium to provide enough raw material for a single bomb," said Peter Zimmerman, a former chief scientist of the US Arms Control and Disarmament Agency

The new figures come in a report from the International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN's nuclear watchdog, released on Thursday. This revealed that Iran's production of low enriched uranium had previously been underestimated.

When the agency carried out an annual stocktaking of Natanz in mid-November Iran had produced 839kg of low enriched uranium hexafluoride – more than 200kg more than previously thought. Tehran produced an additional 171kg by the end of January.

"It's sure certain that if they didn't have it [enough] when the IAEA took these measurements, they will have it in a matter of weeks," Mr Zimmerman said.

Iran's success in reaching such a "breakout capacity" – a stage that would allow it to produce enough fissile material for a bomb in a matter of months – crosses a "red line" that for years Israel has said it would not accept.

UN officials emphasise that to produce fissile material Iran would have to reconfigure its Natanz plant to produce high enriched uranium rather than low enriched uranium – a highly visible step that would take months – or to shift its stockpile to a clandestine site.

No such sites have been proved to exist, although for decades Iran concealed evidence of its nuclear programme.

A senior UN official added that countries usually waited until they had an enriched uranium stockpile sufficient for several bombs before proceeding to develop fissile material. He conceded that Iran now had enough enriched uranium for one bomb.

"Do they have enough low enriched uranium to produce a significant quantity [enough high enriched uranium for a bomb]?" he said. "In theory this is possible, [although] with the present configuration at Natanz it isn't."

David Albright, the head of the Institute for Science and International Security, said: "If Iran did decide to build nuclear weapons, it's entering an era in which it could do so quickly."

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 19 Feb 09 - 09:40 PM

By Mark Heinrich
Mon Sep 15, 8:12 AM ET

VIENNA (Reuters) - ....But Iran seemed some way from refining enough uranium to build a nuclear weapon, if it chose, the report indicated.

Iran had stockpiled 480 kg (1,050 pounds) of low-enriched uranium so far. It would need 15,000 kg (33,000) to convert into high-enriched uranium for fuelling an atom bomb, said U.N. officials who spoke on condition of anonymity.

"That would be a significant quantity, one unit of HEU, and would take on the order of two years," said one official.

In its last report in May, the IAEA said Iran appeared to be withholding information needed to explain intelligence that it had linked projects to process uranium, test high explosives and modify a missile cone in a way suitable for a nuclear warhead. "

..................................................................


FIVE months 4 days later....


Iran holds enough uranium for bomb
By Daniel Dombey in Washington

Published: February 19 2009 21:18 | Last updated: February 20 2009 00:51

Iran has built up a stockpile of enough enriched uranium for one nuclear bomb, United Nations officials acknowledged on Thursday.

In a development that comes as the Obama administration is drawing up its policy on negotiations with Tehran over its nuclear programme, UN officials said Iran had produced more nuclear material than previously thought.


They said Iran had accumulated more than one tonne of low enriched uranium hexafluoride at a facility in Natanz.

If such a quantity were further enriched it could produce more than 20kg of fissile material – enough for a bomb.

"It appears that Iran has walked right up to the threshold of having enough low enriched uranium to provide enough raw material for a single bomb," said Peter Zimmerman, a former chief scientist of the US Arms Control and Disarmament Agency

The new figures come in a report from the International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN's nuclear watchdog, released on Thursday. This revealed that Iran's production of low enriched uranium had previously been underestimated.

When the agency carried out an annual stocktaking of Natanz in mid-November Iran had produced 839kg of low enriched uranium hexafluoride – more than 200kg more than previously thought. Tehran produced an additional 171kg by the end of January.

"It's sure certain that if they didn't have it [enough] when the IAEA took these measurements, they will have it in a matter of weeks," Mr Zimmerman said.

Iran's success in reaching such a "breakout capacity" – a stage that would allow it to produce enough fissile material for a bomb in a matter of months – crosses a "red line" that for years Israel has said it would not accept.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Feb 09 - 04:25 PM

updated 8:05 a.m. EST, Fri February 20, 2009

   Iran ready to build nuclear weapon, analysts say

Story Highlights
ISIS report says Iran has enough uranium for nuclear weapon

Uranium would need further refinement before turning into weapon

Iran says claims it intends to build nuclear bombs are "baseless"

   
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Iranian scientists have reached "nuclear weapons breakout capability," according to a new report based on findings of the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency.

The Institute for Science and International Security report concludes Iran does not yet have a nuclear weapon but does have enough low-enriched uranium for a single nuclear weapon.

The type of uranium the International Atomic Energy Agency report says Iran has would have to be further enriched to make it weapons-grade.

The institute drew its conclusions from an IAEA report dated February 19, 2009. An official in the IAEA confirmed the authenticity of the report for CNN, but didn't want to be named.

The IAEA report is posted on the Web site of ISIS, a Washington-based non-profit and non-partisan institution focused on stopping the spread of nuclear weapons.

It also finds that while Iran has dramatically increased installation of centrifuges that can be used for enriching uranium -- from 4,000 to 5,400 -- its scientists aren't using the new units yet. They remain in "research and development mode."

In the IAEA report, the agency also says no substantive progress has been made in resolving issues about possible "military dimensions" to Iran's nuclear program.

Iran has consistently denied the weapons allegations, calling them "baseless" and "fabricated."

Iran says its nuclear program is necessary to provide civilian energy for the country, but other countries have voiced concern that its true purpose is to produce nuclear weapons

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Feb 09 - 11:43 PM

http://whirledview.typepad.com/whirledview/2009/02/whoohoo-atoms-of-fissionable-material-everywhere.html


"As I put the tea water on to boil and turned on the tv this morning, I was assaulted by the claim that seems to be everywhere. Maybe you've seen it in the New York Times, or the Los Angeles Times, or heard the same CBS report that I did, or even read it on Kevin Drum.

It's a lie.

Much as I hate to do so, because psychology tells us that repetition will help to fix the erroneous message in our minds, I will quote the most egregious statement of this "news."

     Iran has enriched sufficient uranium to amass a nuclear bomb - a
     third more than previously thought - the United Nations announced yesterday.

Ah yes. And if you live in Boulder, Colorado, or in Connecticut, or New York City, you have enough U-235 under your house (or perhaps block) to amass a nuclear bomb! Or, Kevin, all that sea water lapping up against the California coast has uranium in it too! I have a call in to the IAEA to inspect your homes!

The issue here is concentration. Mining uranium concentrates it from the ore. Purification and conversion to UF6 concentrates it further. The purpose of the enrichment centrifuges is to concentrate the fissionable U-235.

Concentration is not that hard to understand, but in our science-challenged society (yes, we all hated chemistry, where it was discussed in the first week), it seems not to be a consideration. See also this post from earlier this week.

The concentration of U-235 is 3.49% in the enriched uranium that the Natanz plant is turning out. The IAEA has found no evidence (Download Iran 0902) that any higher enrichment is being produced. 3.49% is not enough to make a bomb. Iran is not in a position to make a bomb, unless there is a bunch of hidden stuff that nobody has found, involving big buildings that can be seen by satellite surveillance.

It would take a reconfiguration of the Natanz facility that the inspectors would notice to produce bomb-grade uranium (concentration of U-235 of 90%). The inspectors also take environmental samples to verify the concentration of U-235. They would have to be kicked out of the facility and their video cameras taken down for Iran to do this.

There are a number of other things in that IAEA report that the media aren't bothering to report, like that the pace of enrichment has slowed. That doesn't support the idea that Iran is racing toward a bomb, so it's not relevant, I guess."

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 02:23 PM

Seoul: N. Korean missile can hit U.S. bases

Story Highlights
New missiles can travel about 3,000 kilometers

Weapons could reach Alaska or U.S. bases on Guam

Tensions on Korean peninsula running high

   
SEOUL, South Korea (CNN) -- Stalinist North Korea deployed new medium-range ballistic missiles and expanded special forces training during 2008, South Korea's defense ministry reported.

The missiles can travel about 3,000 kilometers (1,900 miles), possibly putting U.S. military bases in the Pacific Ocean territory of Guam within striking distance, the Ministry of National Defense said in its 2008 Defense White Paper, South Korea's Yonhap news agency reported Monday.

The paper, published after weeks of delay, calls the North's 1.2 million-strong military an "immediate and grave threat," according to Yonhap.

The report adds that the North has recently bolstered its naval forces, reinforcing submarines and developing new torpedoes, in addition to increasing its special forces training after reviewing U.S. military tactics in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Tension between Pyongyang and Seoul has increased in recent weeks, with North Korea announcing it would scrap peace agreements with the South, warning of a war on the Korean peninsula and threatening to test a missile capable of hitting the western United States.

U.S. and South Korean officials have said that North Korea appears to be preparing to test-fire its long-range missile, the Taepodong-2. Pyongyang tested one of the missiles in 2006, but it failed 40 seconds after launch.

The missile is thought to have an intended range of about 4,200 miles (6,700 kilometers), which if true, could give it the capability of striking Alaska or Hawaii.

North Korea has been involved in what is known as the six-party talks with the United States, Japan, Russia, South Korea and China, which is an effort to end the nation's nuclear program, which the U.S. says is linked to nuclear weapons.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who returned from Asia on Sunday after her first overseas trip in the post, recently called North Korea's nuclear program "the most acute challenge to stability in northeast Asia."

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 02:33 PM

"They would have to be kicked out of the facility and their video cameras taken down for Iran to do this."

Which they have been, in the past, and can be in the future.


But what happened to " They can't get the material for at least five years, so we can take our time talking with them?

If the UN was wrong before, why should we think them right in the future? Are you willing to accept a nuclear explosion that will kill all the Palestinians ( as well as Israelis and most Lebanese) as inevitable?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 02:34 PM

No, I definitely don't consider it inevitable. Or even remotely likely.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 02:46 PM

And I think the mention of the Palestinians is a key point. While some people like to accuse those who don't see Iran as a threat of not caring about Israel, that makes no sense in the context of a discussion with someone who cares about the Palestinians (leaving aside the wrongheadedness of accusing such people of not caring about Israel, or at least Israelis).

I think it should be obvious that I wouldn't want the Palestinians (or Israelis) to be the target of a nuclear weapon. But Iran isn't going to nuke Israel. They have no reason to want to do so. It would not accomplish any of their goals, and it would totally destroy their own country.

Israel, on the other hand, does have reasons for wanting to destroy Iran as a country that have nothing to do with national security, and everything to do with regional hegemony.

Which is why it is patently obvious to me that the kind of incessant beating of the war drums to incite people to want the US or Israel to attack Iran that we see in the articles being posted here in this thread also has nothing whatever to do with anyone's own self-defense, and is entirely motivated by hegemonic ambitions.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 02:51 PM

"But Iran isn't going to nuke Israel. They have no reason to want to do so. It would not accomplish any of their goals, and it would totally destroy their own country.

Israel, on the other hand, does have reasons for wanting to destroy Iran as a country that have nothing to do with national security, and everything to do with regional hegemony"



I will consider this to be your unsupported opinion, and let the facts speak for reality.

Iran has declared it wants Israel destroyed.
Israel has declared that it wants the UN to hold Iran to the NPT that Iran signed, and benefited from.

What part of "Death to Jews!" do you not understand????

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 03:06 PM

Iran hasn't said it wants Israel destroyed. Their president said he expects the political entity that Iranians consider to be an aggressive apartheid regime to be dismantled at some point in the future. There is a big difference between these two things. Keep in mind that the term "Israel" for many people in that region doesn't have anything to do with the landmass that Israel is sitting on, or even the general population of that country, but refers specifically to the regime that holds power there. To the Iranians, that regime is what they would term the Zionist regime. They want that regime to go away. They don't, however, want the people of Israel to be killed.

In Iran they say "death to" anything they don't like. Including traffic. It's a common expression there that really has nothing whatever to do with an intention to actually kill anyone.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 03:12 PM

And there is no evidence that Iran is not complying with the NPT.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 03:16 PM

"They don't, however, want the people of Israel to be killed.

In Iran they say "death to" anything they don't like. Including traffic. It's a common expression there that really has nothing whatever to do with an intention to actually kill anyone."



Right. Hitler said what he meant, too, and people like you said he didn't mean it....

Tell me about the Baha'i that have been killed , tortured, or imprisoned. How many Jews are in Iran, compared to under the Shah? What rights do they have?

Now look at Israel- How many Arab Moslims are living there? Compare to Jordan, the PALESTINIAN ARAB MOSLIM HOMELAND.

WHen will the Arab Moslims leave the Jewish Homeland and go back to their own, as defined in the LAST INTERNATIOANALLY ACCEPTED borders???


When the Palestinians accept the last set of internationally accepted borders (1923), and move out of the West Bank into Jordan ( the Arab Moslim Homeland), there will be peace in the region.

Any violence in Palestine until then is due entirely to the refusal of the Palestinian Moslims to abide by those borders.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 03:18 PM

"And there is no evidence that Iran is not complying with the NPT. "



BULLSHIT!!!!!

Just the statements of the UN, the statements of Iran, and the facts of the matter.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 03:52 PM

Let's look at what the Iranian government would gain if it tried to nuke Israel....






...nothing. It would gain nothing. It would be destroyed and it would accomplish nothing else. There are many things Iran would probably like to do... becoming a major power in the Middle East is probably one of them. But destroying themselves for nothing doesn't accomplish anything they want.

They also feel quite confident that the regime in Israel will be dismantled without any help from them, so they don't really see any need to do anything to remove the regime themselves (thereby destroying themselves in the process).

Hitler only said he was going to kill those he actually intended to kill. Since the Iranians say death to things they clearly have no intention of killing (anything that pisses them off), it is pretty obvious that their use of that term is not similar in any way to Hitler's statement of his intentions.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 03:57 PM

"Let's look at what the Iranian government would gain if it tried to nuke Israel....


...nothing. It would gain nothing. It would be destroyed and it would accomplish nothing else. There are many things Iran would probably like to do... becoming a major power in the Middle East is probably one of them. But destroying themselves for nothing doesn't accomplish anything they want."


And please tell me how the exact SAME thing does not apply to Israel??? BY THESE standards, ISRAEL , which would gain nothing and be destroyed, CANNOT be trying to destroy Iran.

Unless you keep applying a different set of rules to Jews than you do to the rest of the world.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 04:22 PM

The difference is that Israel would not be destroyed if it attacked Iran. Israel could attack Iran and accomplish its stated goals of regional hegemony without being destroyed itself. Iran could not attack Israel without being destroyed.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 04:38 PM

No. CarolC. If Israel uses nuclear weapons OTHER THAN IN SELF DEFENSE after being attacked by them, that would be the end of the Jewish people.


ANY nation that initiates nuclear warfare will cease to exist. Israel has had nuclear weapons since the late 1960's- WHY do you think they did NOT use them in 1974 ( when the Syrian attack ALMOST succeeded?)?

But IMHO Iran does not believe that they will be destroyed, and WILL use nuclear weapons, either directly or by their Hamas or Hezboallah proxies. Your comments do not provide any reason that they would not.- As for "deterence", the countries that are SAFE from nuclear attack are those that DO NOT HAVE NUCLEAR WEAPONS!

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Amos
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 04:41 PM

I do not believe Israel has the destruction of any nation or genus in its agenda.

I actually do not believe any nation really does, despite the "Death to____" rhetoric that occasionally popos up from the fanatic quarters.

Rhetoric like that is too bizarre and other-worldly to take seriously unless and until some sort of evidence of active pursuit materializes, IMHO.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 06:02 PM

No, Israel would successfully persuade the Western countries that they had to do it pre-emptively because of an existential threat (as they are trying to do now) and the Western countries wouldn't do a thing in response. No non-Western country would do anything in response either, because the US wouldn't allow them to.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 06:15 PM

One question, for all those who talk about nuclear weapons and so and so nuking whoever.

Israel's nuclear programme started in 1958, a good 10 years before the Nuclear NPT was proposed by Ireland at the UN. At that time the established "nuclear" powers, i.e. those who already had nuclear weapons conducted atmospheric tests.

Of the countries that were not signatories of the Nuclear NPT first India developed its nuclear weapon and conducted an underground test, so it knows it has a bomb that works.

This was followed by Pakistan who developed its nuclear weapon and conducted an underground test, so Pakistan also knows it has a bomb that works.

Next one down the line was North Korea who withdrew from the nuclear NPT having ignored its terms and conditions and developed its nuclear weapon and conducted an underground test, so we can assume that North Korea knows it has a bomb that works.

My question to all those who talk about Israel's nuclear arsenal and what they are longing to do with it - When did Israel conduct its test of its nuclear weapon?? Its something that you cannot do in secret and in the 60's and 70's it couldn't be done just by modelling it - So when did Israel conduct the testing of its nuclear weapon??

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 06:22 PM

Most likely in the southern Indian Ocean in 1979, jointly with South Africa.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 10:59 PM

NKorea says it is preparing satellite launch
         
Jae-soon Chang, Associated Press Writer – 19 mins ago

SEOUL, South Korea – North Korea said Tuesday it is in full-fledged preparations to shoot a satellite into orbit, its clearest reference yet to an impending launch, which neighbors and the U.S. believe will be an illicit test of a long-range missile.

The statement from the North's space technology agency came amid international concern the communist nation is gearing up to fire its most advanced Taepodong-2 missile, which would violate a U.N. Security Council resolution.

Last week, the country said it has the right to "space development." North Korea has in the past used terms like "space development" or "satellite" to disguise a missile test. When it test-fired a Taepodong-1 ballistic missile over Japan in 1998, it claimed to have put a satellite into orbit.

"Full-fledged preparations are under way to launch the pilot communications satellite Kwangmyongsong No. 2" at the launch site in Hwadae in the country's northeast, the North's agency said in a statement, carried by Pyongyang's official Korean Central News Agency.

Hwadae is widely believed to be the launch site for the North's longest-range Taepodong-2 missile, which is believed capable of reaching Alaska. Media reports have suggested the missile being readied for launch could be an advanced version of the Taepodong-2 that could reach even farther, to the U.S. west coast.

South Korea, Japan and the United States have warned Pyongyang not to fire a missile, saying the move would trigger international sanctions and jeopardize Washington's willingness to improve relations with the communist nation.

North Korea is banned from any ballistic missile activity under a U.N. Security Council resolution adopted after the North's first-ever nuclear test in 2006.

North Korea's missile program is a major security concern for the region, along with its nuclear weapons development.

The country test-launched a Taepodong-2 missile in 2006, but it plunged into the ocean shortly after liftoff.

That test alarmed the world and gave new energy to the stop-and-go diplomacy over North Korea's nuclear program, though the North is not yet believed to have mastered the miniaturization technology required to put a nuclear warhead on a missile.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 01:05 AM

http://rabbibrant.com/2009/02/23/the-jews-of-iran-beyond-the-rhetoric/

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/23/opinion/23cohen.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 01:21 AM

Ah the "Vela" incident an unidentified double flash of light detected by a United States Vela satellite on September 22, 1979.

Discounted after extensive investigation for the following reasons:

- Although a double flash was detected there was a discrepancy in bhangmeter readings.

- The satellite was old and two years past it's "sell-by-date" its EMP sensors were no longer functioning.

- United States Air Force WC-135B aircraft flew 25 sorties in the area soon after, but failed to detect any sign of radiation.

- There was no corroborating seismic or hydro-acoustic data.

- A special panel was convened to examine the data recorded by the satellite. The panel's report stated "Based on our experience in related scientific assessments," it was their collective judgement that the signal was spurious.

- The "explosion" (Flash) was picked up by only one of the two Vela satellites which seems to support the panel's assertion. The Vela satellites had previously detected 41 atmospheric tests, each of which was subsequently confirmed by other means. The absence of corroboration of a nuclear origin for the Vela Incident also suggests that the signal was spurious.

- Since the fall of apartheid, South Africa has disclosed most of the information on its nuclear weapons program, and according to the subsequent International Atomic Energy Agency report, South Africa could not have constructed such a device until November 1979, two months after the incident.

- The IAEA reported that all South African nuclear devices had been accounted for when it monitored South Africa's abandonment of it's nuclear programme.

- In February 1994 Commodore Dieter Gerhardt, a convicted Soviet spy and commander of South Africa's Simon's Town naval base at the time, talked about the incident upon his release from prison. He said:

"Although I was not directly involved in planning or carrying out the operation, I learned unofficially that the flash was produced by an Israeli-South African test, code-named Operation Phenix. The explosion was clean and was not supposed to be detected. But they were not as smart as they thought, and the weather changed – so the Americans were able to pick it up."

He subsequently admitted that no South African naval vessels had been involved, and that he had no first hand knowledge of a test.

- On April 20, 1997, the Israeli daily newspaper Haaretz, quoted South African Deputy Foreign Minister Aziz Pahad as confirming that the flash over the Indian Ocean was indeed from a South African nuclear test. Soon afterwards Pahad reported that he had been misquoted and that he was merely repeating the rumours that had been circulating for years.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 01:56 AM

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/israel/nuke-test.htm

"In addition to detection satellites, the United States maintains a global network for detecting other atomic explosion phenomena, including sound waves, seismic shock waves traveling through Earth, and hydroacoustic pulses traversing Earth's oceans. Of these, the best data were from the hydroacoustic signals collected on devices called hydrophones. The hydrophone data indicated signals both from a direct path and from a reflection of the Antarctic's Scotia Ridge. Analyses of these signals conducted by the Naval Research Laboratory confirmed that they had been generated at a time and location consistent with the Vela 6911 detection and that their intensity was consistent with a small nuclear explosion on, or slightly under, the ocean's surface.

More evidence came from a Los Alamos researcher using a radio telescope for an unrelated project in Arecibo, Puerto Rico, detected a traveling ionospheric disturbance - a ripple in Earth's upper atmosphere - moving south to north during the early morning hours of September 22, 1979, something researchers had never before witnessed.

But such evidence was discounted by the White House panel.

In 1979, this analysis had been vigorously challenged by the Carter administration. The challenge was driven by a general mistrust in aging satellites and an unwillingness to accept the efficacy of other evidence. Instead, the Carter administration assembled a panel of scientists from academia to review the data. After their review, the panel concluded that, lacking independent collaborative data to support a nuclear origin of the signals, the original interpretation of the satellite data could not be justified. The panel said the flash could have been caused by a combination of natural events, specifically a micrometeorite impact on the detector sunshade, followed by small particles ejected as a result of the impact.

But Los Alamos scientists were not dissuaded. "The whole federal laboratory community came to the conclusion that the data indicated a bomb," Los Alamos scientist Dave Simons said. "But in the administration's view, because the evidence was weak, they took exception to the information and our analysis. ... It was unsettling because we were quite thoroughly convinced of our interpretation," Simons said.

Los Alamos scientists remained convinced that the flash was a nuclear detonation and invested substantial effort in analyzing the signal. Subsequently, Los Alamos researchers published an unclassified paper describing the characteristics of optical signals caused by nuclear explosions.

In February 1980, CBS News was the first to suggest that Israel helped South Africa conduct a nuclear test. CBS received information from "informed sources," but until now, no South African government official was willing to lend the report any credibility.

In 1981 TIROS-N plasma data and related geophysical data measured on 22 September 1979 were analyzed by Los Alamos to determine whether the electron precipitation event detected by TIROS-N at 00:54:49 universal time could have been related to a surface nuclear burst (SNB). The occurrence of such a burst was inferred from light signals detected by two Vela bhangmeters approx. 2 min before the TIROS-N event. The precipitation was found to be unusually large but not unique. It probably resulted from passage of TIROS-N through The precipitating electrons above a pre-existing auroral arc that may have brightened to an unusually high intensity from natural causes approx. 3 min before the Vela signals. On the other hand, no data were found that were inconsistent with the SNB interpretation of the 22 September Vela observations. In fact, a patch of auroral light that suddenly appeared in the sky near Syowa Base, Antarctica a few seconds after the Vela event can be interpreted (though not uniquely) as a consequence of the electromagnetic pulse of an SNB.

In an 20 April 1997 article that appeared in the Israeli Ha'aretz Daily Newspaper, South African Deputy Foreign Minister Aziz Pahad confirmed for the first time that a flare over the Indian Ocean detected by an American satellite in September 1979 was from a nuclear test. This statement was confirmed by the American Embassy in Pretoria, South Africa, as an accurate account of what Pahad officially acknowledged. The article said that Israel helped South Africa develop its bomb designs in return for 550 tons of raw uranium and other assistance.

With Pahad's revelation, Los Alamos National Laboratory scientists said this controversy can at last reach closure. Original analyses conducted by Los Alamos scientists and others in the US intelligence community said the flash could only be from a nuclear test. Now, their studies had been vindicated."

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 02:20 AM

What were the Los Alamos National Laboratory scientists and others in the US intelligence community reaction to Aziz Pahad's statement that he had been misquoted?

I would also have thought that to conduct a nuclear test you would need some nuclear material. South Africa's stocks were all accounted for and assessments state that they couldn't have conducted such a test until two months after the Vela "Flash" reports. That leaves us with the possibility that if indeed the satellite did detect a nuclear test it was a small Israeli nuke that was tested, using Israeli material to a South African design?? That would also explain why no South African naval vessels were used and confirms that Commodore Dieter Gerhardt hadn't a clue about the test that he stated happened.

Likely? No, it could not have been conducted without extensive monitoring facilities being put in place. Deep in the South Atlantic/Indian Ocean, Israel just simply does not have the logistics to mount such an operation. It would have required the assistance of the South African Navy and there would have been some record of that.

Israel goes nuclear in 1958 and waits until 1979 to conduct a test?? Why?? It would have served Israel's interests to have conducted a "secret" test in a drilled shaft in the Negev in the 1960's - That would have stopped Nasser in his tracks pdq.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 01:02 PM

CarolC,

Let us suppose you are correct:

"
- Since the fall of apartheid, South Africa has disclosed most of the information on its nuclear weapons program, and according to the subsequent International Atomic Energy Agency report, South Africa could not have constructed such a device until November 1979, two months after the incident.

- The IAEA reported that all South African nuclear devices had been accounted for when it monitored South Africa's abandonment of it's nuclear programme."



This is proof that the IAEA is wrong in regards to that test- So how can we trust that they are wrong OR right in regards to Iran having fissionable material? Your arguement rests upon the assumption that the IAEA cannot be depended upon for accurate information.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 01:27 PM

CarolC,


"- United States Air Force WC-135B aircraft flew 25 sorties in the area soon after, but failed to detect any sign of radiation"


So the Israelis have a nuclear weapon that does not leave any residual radiation?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 02:19 PM

I don't see why we need to know exactly when and where Israel conducted its test(s) (at least those of us here in this thread), or even why Israel would have needed to conduct a test of its own. We know Israel has them. I expect that the question of whether or not Israel conducted tests is a bit of a diversionary tactic anyway. Israel was getting a lot of help from nuclear armed countries in the development of their weapons, so it's entirely possible that they could produce working nuclear weapons without ever having to conduct a test of their own (the tests having been done by the countries that developed the weapons that Israel was producing).


Israel's nuclear submarines


Some background...

http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/index.html?http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/593/5545.php


Sale of heavy water to Israel by the UK...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4743987.stm

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 02:37 PM

"In December 1960, Israeli Prime Minister David Ben Gurion told the Israeli parliament that a nuclear reactor was under construction, but he said it was exclusively for peaceful purposes.

It was the first and last time that an Israeli prime minister made a public statement about Dimona, according to "Israel and the Bomb," an authoritative book by Avner Cohen, an Israeli American scholar.

Soon after taking office in 1961, President Kennedy pressured Israel to allow an inspection. Ben Gurion agreed, and an American team visited the installation that May.

A post-visit U.S. memo said the scientists were "satisfied that nothing was concealed from them and that the reactor is of the scope and peaceful character previously described to the United States."
"

And this is as much PROOF of Israel's peaceful use of nuclear material as Iran's claims that it's ( illegal) programs are for peaceful purposes. IF you claim Israel has nuclear weapons, you are saying that Iran could also be developing them, contrary to their previous claims.

Or do you still apply different standards to Jews than you do to others???

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 02:53 PM

That information is rather dated. They know now (because Mordechai Vanunu produced pictures of it) that the inspectors were only allowed to view the above ground part of the facility, and that the important activity took place underground. The entrances to the underground areas were concealed from the inspectors.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 02:55 PM

And only those tricky Jews can do that?

As I said, it has the SAME validity as your cliams of Iranian PEACEFUL nuclear programs.


Nor MORE, OR LESS.

So what do you want to say?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 03:02 PM

Well, we didn't sanction Israel for doing that, so it would be a double standard for us to sanction Iran for doing that.

Despite someone's repeated assertion of a double standard penalizing Jews, I would say that there is definitely a double standard that is being applied, and that it advantages Jews (Israel in particular) and disadvantages those who are not Jews or Israel.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 03:05 PM

"Well, we didn't sanction Israel for doing that, so it would be a double standard for us to sanction Iran for doing that."

Israel IS NOT A SIGNATORY TO THE NPT.

The Iranian violation of the NPT is the reason for the sactions.

Isreael HAS NOT VIOLATED THE NPT.

And it is not "We", but the UN that is sanctioning Iran.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 03:16 PM

There are many countries who are signatories to the NPT that have nuclear weapons.


To the extent that Israel complains about Iran having nuclear weapons, it is applying a double standard as well. Because it has no business complaining about countries that have signed an agreement that it refuses to sign itself.

I should modify what I said in my last post. To the extent that Jews are in agreement with Israeli policies, they are advantaged by the double standard. Those Jews who are not in agreement with Israel's policies are disadvantaged by the double standard along with everyone else.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 03:23 PM

Also, because Israel refuses to acknowledge its nuclear weapons, it does not get pressured by countries like the US to sign on to the NPT, unlike the other nuclear countries that are not currently signatories. But the US knows that Israel has nuclear weapons and it doesn't openly acknowledge this and use that acknowledgment as a basis for pressuring Israel to sign the NPT and so the US is therefore practicing a double standard in that way as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 03:26 PM

Many???


5, the ones that HAD them WHEN they signed.

Have you ever even looked at the NPT, and tried to understand what it said?

It appears that you do not understand the NPT in the least.

"The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, also Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT or NNPT) is a treaty to limit the spread of nuclear weapons, opened for signature on July 1, 1968. There are currently 189 countries party to the treaty, five of which have nuclear weapons: the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, and the People's Republic of China (the permanent members of the UN Security Council).

Only four recognized sovereign states are not parties to the treaty: India, Israel, Pakistan and North Korea. India, Pakistan and North Korea have openly tested and possess nuclear weapons. Israel has had a policy of opacity regarding its own nuclear weapons program. North Korea acceded to the treaty, violated it, and later withdrew.

The treaty was proposed by Ireland, and Finland was the first to sign. The signing parties decided by consensus to extend the treaty indefinitely and without conditions upon meeting in New York City on May 11, 1995. The NPT consists of a preamble and eleven articles. Although the concept of "pillars" appears nowhere in the NPT, the treaty is nevertheless sometimes interpreted as having three pillars: non-proliferation, disarmament, and the right to peacefully use nuclear technology.[1]"

"First pillar: non-proliferation
Five states are recognized by the NPT as nuclear weapon states (NWS): France (signed 1992), the People's Republic of China (1992), the Soviet Union (1968; obligations and rights now assumed by Russia), the United Kingdom (1968), and the United States (1968) (The U.S., UK, and Soviet Union were the only states openly possessing such weapons among the original ratifiers of the treaty, which entered into force in 1970). These five nations are also the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. These five NWS agree not to transfer "nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices" and "not in any way to assist, encourage, or induce" a non-nuclear weapon state (NNWS) to acquire nuclear weapons (Article I). NNWS parties to the NPT agree not to "receive," "manufacture" or "acquire" nuclear weapons or to "seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons" (Article II). NNWS parties also agree to accept safeguards by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to verify that they are not diverting nuclear energy from peaceful uses to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices (Article III).

The five NWS parties have made undertakings not to use their nuclear weapons against a non-NWS party except in response to a nuclear attack, or a conventional attack in alliance with a Nuclear Weapons State. However, these undertakings have not been incorporated formally into the treaty, and the exact details have varied over time. The U.S. also had nuclear warheads targeted at North Korea, a non-NWS state, from 1959 until 1991. The previous United Kingdom Secretary of State for Defence, Geoff Hoon, has also explicitly invoked the possibility of the use of the country's nuclear weapons in response to a non-conventional attack by "rogue states"[4]. In January 2006, President Jacques Chirac of France indicated that an incident of state-sponsored terrorism on France could trigger a small-scale nuclear retaliation aimed at destroying the "rogue state's" power centers."

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Amos
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 03:28 PM

BRuce:

Do you think Israel should subscribe to the Non-Proliferation Treaty? I can see why it would think it a bad idea, seeing itself as surrounded by fundamentally hostile nations.

But this raises another question. What do you believe are the root causes between Israel and the Arab nations for the recurring hostility in the region over the last sixty years or so?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 03:29 PM

The third pillar allows for and agrees upon the transfer of nuclear technology and materials to NPT signatory countries for the development of civilian nuclear energy programs in those countries, as long as they can demonstrate that their nuclear programs are not being used for the development of nuclear weapons.

Since very few of the nuclear weapons states and states using nuclear reactors for energy generation are willing to completely abandon possession of nuclear fuel, the third pillar of the NPT under Article IV provides other states with the possibility to do the same, but under conditions intended to make it difficult to develop nuclear weapons.

The treaty recognizes the inalienable right of sovereign states to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, but restricts this right for NPT parties to be exercised "in conformity with Articles I and II" (the basic nonproliferation obligations that constitute the "first pillar" of the Treaty). As the commercially popular light water reactor nuclear power station uses enriched uranium fuel, it follows that states must be able either to enrich uranium or purchase it on an international market. Mohamed ElBaradei, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, has called the spread of enrichment and reprocessing capabilities the "Achilles' heel" of the nuclear nonproliferation regime. As of 2007 13 states have an enrichment capability.[11] Because the availability of fissile material has long been considered the principal obstacle to, and "pacing element" for, a country's nuclear weapons development effort, it was declared a major emphasis of U.S. policy in 2004 to prevent the further spread of uranium enrichment and plutonium reprocessing (a.k.a. "ENR") technology. [12] Countries possessing ENR capabilities, it is feared, have what is in effect the option of using this capability to produce fissile material for weapons use on demand, thus giving them what has been termed a "virtual" nuclear weapons program. The degree to which NPT members have a "right" to ENR technology notwithstanding its potentially grave proliferation implications, therefore, is at the cutting edge of policy and legal debates surrounding the meaning of Article IV and its relation to Articles I, II, and III of the Treaty.

Countries that have signed the treaty as Non-Nuclear Weapons States and maintained that status have an unbroken record of not building nuclear weapons. However, Iraq was cited by the IAEA and sanctioned by the UN Security Council for violating its NPT safeguards obligations; North Korea never came into compliance with its NPT safeguards agreement and was cited repeatedly for these violations,[13] and later withdrew from the NPT and tested a nuclear device; Iran was found in non-compliance with its NPT safeguards obligations in an unusual non-consensus decision because it "failed in a number of instances over an extended period of time" to report aspects of its enrichment program;[14][15] and Libya pursued a clandestine nuclear weapons program before abandoning it in December 2003. In 1991 Romania reported previously undeclared nuclear activities by the former regime and the IAEA reported this non-compliance to the Security Council for information only. In some regions, the fact that all neighbors are verifiably free of nuclear weapons reduces any pressure individual states might feel to build those weapons themselves, even if neighbors are known to have peaceful nuclear energy programs that might otherwise be suspicious. In this, the treaty works as designed.

Mohamed ElBaradei, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), has said that by some estimates thirty-five to forty states could have the knowledge to acquire nuclear weapons.[16

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 03:32 PM

The failure of the Arab nations to acknowledge the right for Israel to exist in 1948.


Since the Arab nations did NOT agree to the borders of the 1948 partition, the LAST set of Internationally recognized borders are the 1923 ones, between the Arab Moslim Homeland of TransJordan, and the Jewish Homeland of Palestine.

http://www.unitedjerusalem.com/Graphics/Maps/PartitionforTransJordan.asp

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 03:49 PM

CarolC,

non-nuclear weapon state (NNWS)


NNWS parties to the NPT agree not to "receive," "manufacture" or "acquire" nuclear weapons or to "seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons" (Article II). VIOLATED BY IRAN

NNWS parties also agree to accept safeguards by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to verify that they are not diverting nuclear energy from peaceful uses to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices (Article III). VIOLATED BY IRAN

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 03:52 PM

The third pillar allows for and agrees upon the transfer of nuclear technology and materials to NPT signatory countries for the development of civilian nuclear energy programs in those countries, as long as they can demonstrate that their nuclear programs are not being used for the development of nuclear weapons.

Note it is the responsiibility of the signatory state to "demonstrate that their nuclear programs are not being used for the development of nuclear weapons."

FAILURE to demonstrate this is reason for the sanctions against Iran.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 05:08 PM

Well, France certainly violated its commitment to the NPT in assisting Israel's acquisition of a nuclear weapon. While Iran says it is not trying to produce a nuclear weapon. It says, quite rightly, that the NPT gives Iran the right to develop nuclear technology for the purpose of producing energy, and it is entitled to enrich uranium for this purpose. The concentration levels that they are able to achieve with their centrifuges is proof that they are not capable of producing weapons grade uranium. Iran is the only NPT country whose right to nuclear energy is being challenged, while France has not been sanctioned for its violation of the NPT. More of the double standard at work.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 05:13 PM

Well, France certainly violated its commitment to the NPT in assisting Israel's acquisition of a nuclear weapon.

NO. At the time that France assisted Israel, it had NOT signed the NPT.




While Iran says it is not trying to produce a nuclear weapon. It says, quite rightly, that the NPT gives Iran the right to develop nuclear technology for the purpose of producing energy, and it is entitled to enrich uranium for this purpose.

ONLY under the guidelines and restrictions ( monitoring) of the IAEA that Iran rejected.




The concentration levels that they are able to achieve with their centrifuges is proof that they are not capable of producing weapons grade uranium.


False statement. The fact that they can produce the low level enrichment and have the additional centrifuges is proof that they CAN produce weapons grade fissionable material.




Iran is the only NPT country whose right to nuclear energy is being challenged,

No other signatory has rejected the IAEA inspections.



while France has not been sanctioned for its violation of the NPT.

Since it has no such violations, how can it be sanctioned??????

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 05:16 PM

"The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, also Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT or NNPT) is a treaty to limit the spread of nuclear weapons, opened for signature on July 1, 1968."


"A secret agreement with the French government in 1956 helped Israel build a plutonium nuclear reactor. France and Israel were natural partners then; they had been allies with Britain in a brief attempt to seize the Suez Canal after Egypt nationalized it and had shared concerns about the Soviets and unrest in North Africa."


Even YOU, CarolC, should recognize that a treaty signed AFTER 1968 does NOT control actions on and about 1956.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 05:26 PM

More of the double standard at work.



You mean that if we allow Israel the right to self defense, they might not be wiped out by the Arab nations? Horrors- How can we allow that~!

As I have stated, without any contrary indications,


Since the Arab nations did NOT agree to the borders of the 1948 partition, the LAST set of Internationally recognized borders are the 1923 ones, between the Arab Moslim Homeland of TransJordan, and the Jewish Homeland of Palestine.

All subsequent borders are the result of warfare, and if the present borders are to be rejected since they include "occupied" territory, then those ( 1948, 1956, 1967, 1974) borders must also be rejected-

If it is wrong for Israel to keep land acquired in 1967 by military force, it is EQUALLY wrong for the Arab states to keep land occupied by military force- the West Bank, Jerusalem, Gaza- All a part of the 1923 Jewish Homeland, occupied by Jordan in 1948. The present peace treaty between Israel and Jordan acknowledges the border as the River Jordan ( except for a few small adjustments. )

So, I expect you will join me in calling for the removal of all Arab Moslims to their Homeland, TransJordan, and the restoration of the West Bank and Gaza to Israel.

Anything else shows a double standard, that Israel cannot keep the land acquired by war, but the Arab nations can.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 05:32 PM

clarification:

....between the Arab Moslim Homeland of TransJordan, the 77% of Mandate Palestine to the east of the Jordan River where no Jews were allowed to settle, and the Jewish Homeland of Palestine (Israel), the 23% of Mandate Palestine to the West of the Jordan, including the West bank and Gaza.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 05:52 PM

Arabs were under no obligation to allow people from another part of the world take away their right to self determination. And Israel did not have any right, even under any of the agreements it signed, to take any more land than it was granted by the UN in the partition plan.

Iran has not refused to admit inspectors. The inspectors are there, doing their job of inspecting. That's how they know that the concentrations levels of the uranium aren't sufficient for making nuclear weapons.

The person who habitually is accusing me of being anti-Jewish is covering up the agenda of the Israeli government to use the military of the United States (or its own military if needed, that is paid for with money from US taxpayers) to establish an empire in the Middle East that has nothing whatever to do with defense, and everything to do with not wanting there to be any viable powerful states in that part of the world besides itself. The only bigotry on display here is coming from the supremacist who believes that only Jews have a right to a secure state in the Middle East, and that all other countries in that region should be subordinate to the state of Israel.

This is the cause of most of the tension in the Middle East today, and for this reason, it is this particular supremacist who is jeopardizing the safety of the Jews of the world and not me.

When German supremacism caused enough people in the world to feel threatened, the world responded. Israel's Jewish supremacism is causing increasing numbers of people in the rest of the world to feel threatened. Unlike the state of Israel, which wants to prevent all of the other countries in the region from having self-determination, and unlike the person who constantly accuses others of double standards, and who wants an entirely different standard applied to Israel than to any other country in the world, what I propose is that Israel simply be held to the same standard as everyone else (for the first time in its history).

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 05:57 PM

Arabs were under no obligation to allow people from another part of the world take away their right to self determination.

The Treaty ending WW I between the Ottoman Empire, which had control of the Arab region, and the victorious Allies determined that MANDATE PALESTINE was to be the Jewish Homeland. 77% of that Mandate was given to the Arabs, to be their Homeland.





And Israel did not have any right, even under any of the agreements it signed, to take any more land than it was granted by the UN in the partition plan.

The UN partition plan was NEVER accepted by the Arab nations.- the LAST accepted borders are those of 1923.




Iran has not refused to admit inspectors.

FALSE, according to the IAEA.



The inspectors are there, doing their job of inspecting.

No, they and their instruments were removed for a time- during which the Iranisans moved equipment and material to "unknown locations"



That's how they know that the concentrations levels of the uranium aren't sufficient for making nuclear weapons.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 05:59 PM

"I don't see why we need to know exactly when and where Israel conducted its test(s) (at least those of us here in this thread), or even why Israel would have needed to conduct a test of its own."

Now let's see CarolC, every country on this planet that definitely has nuclear weapons has tested them - the superpowers many times over. There is a very good reason for that - you need to know that "yours" works, that is why Israel would have to conduct a test and so far it apparently hasn't.

"We know Israel has them."

No, not exactly, it is generally assumed that Israel has "them".

"I expect that the question of whether or not Israel conducted tests is a bit of a diversionary tactic anyway."

No CarolC I asked a perfectly valid question, as can be clearly documented all countries with nuclear weapons have conducted tests. So why hasn't Israel??

"Israel was getting a lot of help from nuclear armed countries in the development of their weapons, so it's entirely possible that they could produce working nuclear weapons without ever having to conduct a test of their own (the tests having been done by the countries that developed the weapons that Israel was producing)."

Wow post 1968/1972 depending upon which countries you are talking about that is one hell of an accusation. Which doesn't wash, as I said you need to know as an imperitive that the weapon you are relying on for ultimate defence or detterence works. The Israelis are the last nation on earth that would trust another country to do that on their behalf. How do they know that the weapon being tested is their design?? They don't, there would be no way of telling. The first five have done multiple tests with their designs and I believe that certainly the US has so much data from their tests that they can now mathematically model tests without firing a weapon - The Israelis do not have that data so are therefore unable to perform the modelling with any degree of certainty of validity of the model.

That is why I'd like to hear, from those who insist that Israel is a rogue state in the middle-east because of its nuclear weapons, when it tested them.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 06:03 PM

It is a lie to say that the area that is now Israel was given in the mandate to the Jews to be their homeland. The Jews were given the right to have a homeland within a certain area, but they were not supposed to make a Jewish state within that area, and Palestinians were also supposed to have their homeland within that area as well, and they were supposed to have a right to self-determination in that area.

Regardless of whether or not Arabs (Muslim or Christian) didn't agree to the partition plan that does not, and did not, give Israel the right to take any more land than what they were given in the partition plan. The only land they were ever given a right to have by any outside authority was the land they were given in the partition plan, and that land was a fraction of the land they now control.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 06:08 PM

The CIA has said many times that Israel is a nuclear armed country. If Israel got its nuclear technology from another country, it would not be necessary for them to test it to know that it works. And there are still many scientists whose professional opinion is that Israel tested a nuclear weapon in the Indian Ocean with South Africa.

That, plus Israel's possession of weapons systems that are only useful as delivery systems for nuclear weapons, and also things that have no purpose outside of their use in a nuclear weapons program is the reason that most governments in the world acknowledge that Israel is a nuclear armed state.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 08:09 PM

"plus Israel's possession of weapons systems that are only useful as delivery systems for nuclear weapons,"


Such as? there are NO systems that are ONLY used for nuclear weapons.

If you are going to say that IRBM missiles are only useful for nuclear weapons, well, Iran has several versions of them... If Israeli IRBMs are evidence of nuclear weapons, then Iranian IRBMs ( of greater range!) are certainly equal evidence. And specifically, of NON-PEACEFUL use.



" and also things that have no purpose outside of their use in a nuclear weapons program "

You mena like the equipment that Iran has, for use in it's "peaceful" nuclear program???

Why do you insist that Iran has only peaceful nuclear programs, when it has the same level of evidence that you claim proves Israeli weapons?


Further proof of your double standard.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 08:18 PM

CarolC:"The Jews were given the right to have a homeland within a certain area, but they were not supposed to make a Jewish state within that area, and Palestinians were also supposed to have their homeland within that area as well, and they were supposed to have a right to self-determination in that area."


beardedbruce:"MANDATE PALESTINE was to be the Jewish Homeland. 77% of that Mandate was given to the Arabs, to be their Homeland."

So, TransJordan WAS given to the Palestinian Arabs Moslims as a homeland. What was left was supposed to be the Jewish Homeland.

Unless you are saying that the Moslims get a homeland ( where Jews were NOT alowed to live), and Jews do not.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: cobra
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 02:31 AM

Dear BRUCE OF THE BEARD,

I find your use of CAPITALS (selective) EXTREMELY ANNOYING. Why do you do this? I also find that your predilection to mix arguments verges on the disingenuous. You have been asked on a number of occasions to articulate the reasons why Palestinian / Israeli problems PERSIST. What I have gathered from your response is that you justify the existence of Israel on the basis that the "VICTORIOUS ALLIES" authorised it. Not once do you even nod towards a possibility that there may be reasonable Palestinian cause for HOSTILITY towards an overbearing and aggressive neighbour which sidesteps UN mandates apparently at will.

Of course, it is always POSSIBLE that I have missed something more ENLIGHTENED in your contributions. Truth to tell, I find it very difficult to STAY AWAKE when reading your RANTS. That is all.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 02:46 AM

From a link I posted earlier...


"Israel has modified American-supplied cruise missiles to carry nuclear warheads on submarines, giving the Middle East's only nuclear power the ability to launch atomic weapons from land, air and beneath the sea, according to senior Bush administration and Israeli officials.

The previously undisclosed submarine capability bolsters Israel's deterrence in the event that Iran – an avowed enemy – develops nuclear weapons. It also complicates efforts by the United States and the United Nations to persuade Iran to abandon its suspected nuclear weapons program.

Two Bush administration officials described the missile modification and an Israeli official confirmed it. All three spoke on condition their names not be used...

...The consensus in the U.S. intelligence community and among outside experts is that Israel, with possibly 200 nuclear weapons, has the fifth- or sixth-largest arsenal in the world...

... The U.S. sold Israel F-15 and F-16 fighter jets, both of which can be used to deliver nuclear bombs or missiles. In the 1960s, the French helped Israel develop its first generation of Jericho missiles and the Israelis had built a longer-range Jericho II by the mid-1980s.

The Jericho I and II are equipped with nuclear warheads, and satellite photos indicate that many are hidden in limestone caves southeast of Tel Aviv, near the town of Zachariah, which is Hebrew for "God remembers with vengeance.""

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 02:50 AM

No part of Mandate Palestine was ever given to Jews to be a Jewish state prior to the partition plan. Jews were to be able to make their home in the area that was allotted for that purpose, but they were not supposed to make a Jewish state there. All of the Arabs in all of Mandate Palestine were supposed to be able to remain where they were and to be co-equals with any Jews who chose to make their home there.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 10:14 AM

All been hashed out elsewhere but CarolC's last post:

"No part of Mandate Palestine was ever given to Jews to be a Jewish state prior to the partition plan. Jews were to be able to make their home in the area that was allotted for that purpose, but they were not supposed to make a Jewish state there."

Very true up until the Peel Commission's Report of 1937 where after 16 years of unprovoked Arab attacks Jews in Palestine the British Government finally concluded that the two groups could not co-exist peacefully in one state. This was in the middle of what was known to the Arabs of Palestine as the "Great Revolt". From that date forward the plan was always for a two-state solution. The Peel Commission proposals were taken further by the United Nations who presented their own version of it in 1947. the Jews accepted it, the Arabs rejected it.

"All of the Arabs in all of Mandate Palestine were supposed to be able to remain where they were and to be co-equals with any Jews who chose to make their home there."

Again true CarolC, those Arabs who wanted to stay in what was going to become Israel were quite at liberty to stay. But Arab rejection of the UN Partition Plan of 1947 resulted in a war. Had the Arabs accepted the plan in 1947, there would have been no displaced people, which means today there would be no "Right of return" issue to settle, and the Arabs would have everything they say they are fighting for now.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Amos
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 10:24 AM

Korea (Northern) is presently desperate, cannot feeds its own people, and is planning to test an ICBM. That's a well-thought out plan, you betcha.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 10:47 AM

Just trying to get their old "blackmail" game going again Amos. Since your last administration stuck to the plan of involving all interested parties in six party talks North Korea has been feeling the draft.

The US does not have to worry about North Korea, Japan might, South Korea might, but if North Korea even thinks about starting anything it will be China that will bring them to heel.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 12:23 PM

"No part of Mandate Palestine was ever given to Jews to be a Jewish state prior to the partition plan."


CarolC,

No part of Mandate Palestine was supposed to be given to Moslims to be a Moslim state, but Great Britain did so, in 1923. The remainder of Mandate Palestine should have the same rights as given to the 77% where a Moslim Homeland was set up- There should have been a ban on all Moslim settlement within the declared Jewish Homeland ( the 23% WEST of the Jordan).

Since the UN Partition plan was NOT accepted by the Arab nations, and they went to war over it, there is NO reason for Israel to accept that partition as a limit to it's borders.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 01:01 PM

Note: Plutonium does not need to be enriched to be usable in weapons- the isotopes that are created in a reactor will be weapons-grade when they are separated from the other elements ( chemically) in the used fuel rods.





Iran tests its first nuclear power plant
      

Nasser Karimi, Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 39 mins ago

BUSHEHR, Iran – Iranian and Russian technicians are conducting a test run of Iran's first nuclear power plant, officials said Wednesday, a major step toward launching full operations at the facility, which has long raised worried the U.S. and its allies.

At the same time, Iran claimed another advance in its controversial nuclear program: The number of centrifuges operating at its uranium enrichment plant has increased to 6,000, the country's nuclear chief said — up from 5,000 in November.

His announcement was the latest defiance of United Nations' demands that Tehran suspend its enrichment program because of fears it could be used to produce material for a warhead. Iran denies it seeks to build a nuclear bomb, saying its program aims only to generate electricity.

The United States has been worried over the nuclear plant at the southern port city of Bushehr because it fears Iran will reprocess the spent reactor fuel into plutonium, a potential material for a nuclear bomb. Russia has helped build the facility and is providing it enriched uranium fuel, and for a time Washington pressured Moscow to stop its assistance.

more

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 01:17 PM

"But U.S. concerns softened after Iran agreed to return spent fuel to Russia so it cannot be turned into plutonium."

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/090225/world/iran_nuclear


I'll deal with the other thing later.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 01:18 PM

CarolC,

Iran agreed to the IAEA monitoring, as well- until it became inconvenient and they ended it.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 01:25 PM

btw, the next line of your quoted article:
"Washington largely dropped its opposition to the project and argued instead that the Russia fuel deal shows that Iran does not need its own domestic uranium enrichment program. "

So they do not need the centrifuges.


Why don't we post the paragraphs, instead of just the words we each want to emphasize?


"At the same time, Iran claimed another advance in its controversial nuclear program: The number of centrifuges operating at its uranium enrichment plant has increased to 6,000, the country's nuclear chief said - up from 5,000 in November.
His announcement was the latest defiance of United Nations' demands that Tehran suspend its enrichment program because of fears it could be used to produce material for a warhead. Iran denies it seeks to build a nuclear bomb, saying its program aims only to generate electricity.
The United States has been worried over the nuclear plant at the southern port city of Bushehr because it fears Iran will reprocess the spent reactor fuel into plutonium, a potential material for a nuclear bomb. Russia has helped build the facility and is providing it enriched uranium fuel, and for a time Washington pressured Moscow to stop its assistance.
But U.S. concerns softened after Iran agreed to return spent fuel to Russia so it cannot be turned into plutonium. Washington largely dropped its opposition to the project and argued instead that the Russia fuel deal shows that Iran does not need its own domestic uranium enrichment program. "


Either Russia is processing the spent fuel, and Iran does not need the enrichment that the IAEA is objecting to, or it requires the enrichment, and the Russians do NOT have the control required by the NPT over the fuel.

Which is it?

Do the Russians have the control, so that Iran should shut down the enrichment that the IAEA objects to

Or should Iran be able to have the enrichment because they should not be under the control of the NPT ( ie, they have the right to make weapons regardless of the treaty and UN determinations)?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 02:11 PM

CarolC:"plus Israel's possession of weapons systems that are only useful as delivery systems for nuclear weapons,"


beardedbruce: "Such as? there are NO systems that are ONLY used for nuclear weapons."




I rest my case.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Mar 09 - 11:13 AM

N. Korea threatens war if satellite shot down
      
By JAE-SOON CHANG, Associated Press Writer Jae-soon Chang, Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 59 mins ago

… SEOUL, South Korea – North Korea put its armed forces on standby Monday and threatened "a war" if anyone tries to shoot down what regional powers suspect is an imminent test-firing of a long-range missile.

Pyongyang also cut off a military hot line with the South, causing a complete shutdown of their border and stranding hundreds of South Koreans working in an industrial zone in the North Korean border city of Kaesong.

Monday's warning — the latest barrage of threats from the communist regime — came as U.S. and South Korean troops kicked off annual war games across the South, exercises the North has condemned as preparation for an invasion. Pyongyang last week threatened South Korean passenger planes flying near its airspace during the drills.

Analysts say the regime is trying to grab President Barack Obama's attention as his administration formulates its North Korea policy.

The North also indicated it was pushing ahead with plans to send a communications satellite into space, a provocative launch neighboring governments believe could be a cover for a long-range missile capable of reaching Alaska.

U.S. and Japanese officials have suggested they could shoot down a North Korean missile if necessary, further incensing Pyongyang.

"Shooting our satellite for peaceful purposes will precisely mean a war," the general staff of the North's military said in a statement carried Monday by the official Korean Central News Agency.

Any interception will draw "a just retaliatory strike operation not only against all the interceptor means involved but against the strongholds" of the U.S., Japan and South Korea, it said.

The North has ordered military personnel "fully combat ready," KCNA said in a separate dispatch.

Obama's special envoy on North Korea again urged Pyongyang not to fire a missile, which he said would be an "extremely ill-advised" move.

"Whether they describe it as a satellite launch or something else makes no difference" since both would violate a U.N. Security Council resolution banning the North from ballistic activity, Stephen Bosworth told reporters after talks with his South Korean counterpart.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090309/ap_on_re_as/as_koreas_tension

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Mar 09 - 12:14 PM

No part of Mandate Palestine was ever given to Muslims to be a Muslim state. Not ever. The term, "Muslim" (Moslem) is not interchangeable with the term "Arab".

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Mar 09 - 12:20 PM

On the subject of Iran and its nuclear program, all arguments will probably become irrelevant soon, as President Obama continues his diplomatic efforts there. The Iranians offered to negotiate unconditionally with the US government when Bush was president. This was shortly after Iran was indispensable in helping the US with its war against the Taliban. In return for its efforts, and in response to their offer to negotiate, the Bush administration labeled Iran a part of the "Axis of Evil". Unlike Bush, Obama doesn't have an agenda to overturn the government of Iran for hegemonic reasons, so he will succeed in working out an acceptable agreement with the government of Iran.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 09 Mar 09 - 02:47 PM

Fine, CarolC


Transjordan was given to the Arabs to be an Arab nation where Jews (even Arab ones) were not allowed to settle.


So the remainder of Mandate Palestine SHOULD have been where the Moslims were not allowed to settle.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: bubblyrat
Date: 10 Mar 09 - 10:27 AM

It is quite simple really.The governments of both Iran and North Korea are dominated by total nutters whose sole aim is to foment fear,trouble and mischief,and engineer political instability,with the ultimate aim of precipitating war.As long as the rest of the world allows this state of affairs to continue,then we must all live in fear and foreboding,and.......wait.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 11 Mar 09 - 05:41 AM

NKorea accuses Obama's government of interference
         
Jae-soon Chang, Associated Press Writer – 18 mins ago Play Video AP –

… SEOUL, South Korea – North Korea accused President Barack Obama's government of meddling in its internal affairs Wednesday and vowed to take "every necessary measure" to defend itself against what it calls U.S. threats.

The statement by North Korea's Foreign Ministry, however, was far less harsh than rhetoric issued by the country's military during the run-up to joint U.S.-South Korean war games that started across the South on Monday. The North's military has threatened South Korean passenger planes and put its troops on standby.

Still, the Foreign Ministry's statement was significant in that it was the agency's first on the U.S. since Obama's inauguration, an analyst said.

"The Foreign Ministry is Washington's direct negotiating partner and has not engaged in criticizing the U.S. so far," said Kim Yong-hyun, a professor at Seoul's Dongguk University. "This means they have started expressing pent-up complaints."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090311/ap_on_re_as/as_koreas_tension

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 11 Mar 09 - 05:44 AM

"In Washington, U.S. national intelligence director Dennis Blair said he believes the North is planning a space launch, but said the technology is no different from that of a long-range missile and its success would mean the communist nation is capable of striking the mainland U.S.

"I tend to believe that the North Koreans announced that they would do a space launch and that's what they intend," U.S. national intelligence director Dennis Blair said before a senate panel Tuesday.

"If a three stage space launch vehicle works, then that could reach not only Alaska and Hawaii but part of what the Hawaiians call the mainland and what the Alaskans call the lower forty-eight," he said.

...
U.S., South Korean and Japanese officials have warned Pyongyang not to launch either a satellite or missile — noting that both are the same in principle and differ only in payload.

North Korea is banned from any ballistic missile activity under a U.N. Security Council resolution adopted after the country's first-ever nuclear test blast in 2006.

Seoul's Foreign Minister Yu Myung-hwan renewed the warning that any launch would violate the U.N. resolution. "It's not that a satellite is OK and a missile is not," Yu told reporters. "

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 11 Mar 09 - 06:31 AM

Iran accused of violating UN sanctions
         
Edith M. Lederer, Associated Press Writer – Tue Mar 10, 8:21 pm ET

… UNITED NATIONS – A key Security Council committee reported Tuesday that Iran violated U.N. sanctions by trying to send weapons-related material to Syria on a cargo ship now docked in Cyprus.

Japan's U.N. Ambassador Yukio Takasu, chairman of the committee monitoring sanctions against Iran, provided few details, but his report marked the first official confirmation that the Cypriot-flagged M/V Monchegorsk was trying to circumvent the U.N. arms embargo on Iran. The ship docked on Jan. 29 and is still there, diplomats said.

France's U.N. Ambassador Jean-Maurice Ripert described its shipment as "explosives and ... arms."

Takasu said a U.N. member state — identified by the United States, Britain and France as Cyprus — sent a letter to the committee in early February "seeking guidance with respect to its inspections of cargo on a vessel carrying its flag that was found to be carrying arms-related material."

The committee responded with a letter saying the transfer of the material was a violation of a 2007 Security Council resolution that prohibits Iran from transferring any arms or related material and requires all countries to prohibit the procurement of such items from Iran, Takasu said.

He told the council that the committee sent letters "to concerned member states" on March 9 asking for "any relevant information regarding this transaction" within 10 days.

Copies of the letters to Iran and Syria, obtained by The Associated Press, said the ship's manifest indicated that the Monchegorsk was chartered by the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Line, that the cargo was loaded in Iran and was to be unloaded in Lataki, Syria.

The letters said the committee had received the results of inspections conducted on Jan. 29 and Feb. 2 on a portion of the cargo which found arms-related material, including items described as "bullet shells," high explosive shells, 125 mm armor-piercing shells, and high explosive anti-tank propellant.

...
France's U.N. Ambassador Jean-Maurice Ripert expressed concern because the shipment of "explosives and ... arms" violated sanctions imposed after Iran refused to suspend uranium enrichment.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090311/ap_on_re_eu/un_un_iran_sanctions

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 11 Mar 09 - 10:17 PM

Whom ever is most most free, will be next!

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 16 Mar 09 - 06:47 AM

Iran missile, nuclear threat 'real, dangerous' - Russian analyst
17:35 | 12/ 03/ 2009
   


MOSCOW, March 12 (RIA Novosti) - Russia and the West would be making a big mistake if they ignored or underestimated the potential missile and nuclear threat coming from Iran, a Russian military expert said on Thursday.

"Iran is actively working on a missile development program. I won't say the Iranians will be able to develop intercontinental ballistic missiles in the near future, but they will most likely be able to threaten the whole of Europe," said Maj. Gen. Vladimir Dvorkin, head of the Moscow-based Center for Strategic Nuclear Forces.

Some Western and Russian sources claim that Iran may be currently running a program, dubbed Project Koussar, to develop a totally different missile with a range of 4,000-5,000 km (2,500-3,300 miles).

"Iran has long abandoned outdated missile technologies and is capable of producing sophisticated missile systems," Dvorkin said at a news conference in RIA Novosti.

Iran successfully launched last year an upgraded Shahab-3 ballistic missile as part of a navy exercise, dubbed Great Prophet 3, in the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz.

With a reported range of 2,000 kilometers and armed with a 1-ton conventional warhead, the Shahab-3 puts Israel, Turkey, the Arabian peninsula, Afghanistan and Pakistan within striking distance.

Western powers led by the United States, along with Israel, accuse Tehran of attempting to develop nuclear weapons and ballistic missile technology for their delivery. Iran says it needs its nuclear program for the peaceful generation of electricity and missile program for space exploration.

Iran has consistently defied international demands to halt its nuclear program and insists it plans to use enriched uranium fuel produced at a uranium enrichment facility at Natanz in its first domestically-built nuclear power plant, in the town of Darkhovin, which is scheduled to become operational in 2016.

Tehran announced in late February that it had 6,000 operating centrifuges at Natanz and was planning to install a total of 50,000 over the next five years.

Commenting on the Iranian nuclear program, Dvorkin said the potential danger of its military aspect was not the possibility of a nuclear strike against some countries, but the ability to assume a more bold approach in dealing with the international community after becoming a nuclear power.

"The real threat is that Iran, which is already ignoring all resolutions and sanctions issued by the UN Security Council, will be practically 'untouchable' after acquiring nuclear-power status, and will be able to expand its support of terrorist organizations, including Hamas and Hezbollah," the expert said.

He added that the possession of nuclear weapons by Iran could force non-nuclear countries to seek similar weapons and ballistic missile technologies thus starting a nuclear race and increasing the possibility of a nuclear conflict.

Dvorkin has had a role in writing all major strategy documents for the Strategic Nuclear Forces and the Strategic Missile Forces. As an expert in the field he participated in preparing the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty and the START I and START II pacts, and has made a significant contribution to formulating Soviet and Russian positions at negotiations on strategic offensive arms control and reduction.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Mar 09 - 06:42 AM

"Iranian leaders and proxies seem to be taking the offer of negotiations as a sign of American weakness. "The United States," taunts Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, "is ready now to talk with any party, not out of a sense of morality, but because it failed in its attempts to implement its plans in the region."

Meanwhile, the Iranian Quds Force continues to lead, train and arm Shiite terrorists within Iraq. And, in Senate committee testimony last week, Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair stated: "Some officials, such as Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Commander Major General Mohammad Ali Jafari-Najafabadi, have hinted that Iran would have a hand in attacks on 'America's interests even in faraway places,' suggesting Iran has contingency plans for unconventional warfare and terrorism against the United States and its allies."

Rather than unclenching its fist, Iran has been pounding it on the table. "


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/17/AR2009031702938.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Mar 09 - 08:55 AM

Reports: Russia confirms Iran missile contract
         
Reuters MOSCOW – Russian news agencies cited a top defense official Wednesday as confirming that a contract to sell powerful air-defense missiles to Iran was signed two years ago, but saying none of the weapons have been delivered.

Russian officials have consistently denied claims the country already has provided some of the S-300 missiles to Iran. They have not said whether a contract existed.

The state-run ITAR-Tass and RIA-Novosti news agencies and the independent Interfax quoted an unnamed top official in the Federal Military-Technical Cooperation Service as saying the contract was signed two years ago. Service spokesman Andrei Tarabrin told The Associated Press he could not immediately comment.

Supplying S-300s to Iran would change the military balance in the Middle East and the issue has been the subject of intense speculation and diplomatic wrangling for months.

Israel and the U.S. fear that, were Iran to possess S-300 missiles, it would use them to protect its nuclear facilities — including the uranium enrichment plant at Natanz or the country's first atomic power plant, which is now being built by Russian contractors at Bushehr.

That would make a military strike on the Iranian facilities much more difficult.

It was not clear why the missiles have not been delivered, but the reports cited the defense official as saying "fulfillment of the contract will mainly depend on the current international situation and the decision of the country's leadership."

That could indicate that Russia intends to use the contract as a bargaining chip before next month's meeting between President Dmitry Medvedev and President Barack Obama.

But the defense official said Russia does not intend to abandon the contract, estimated to be worth hundreds of millions of dollars, ITAR-Tass said,

A prominent Russian analyst, Ruslan Pukhov of the Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies, said the missile contract was seen by the Kremlin as primarily a political rather than commercial matter.

"The S-300 contract, and cooperation with Iran in general, is regarded by Moscow only as an instrument of political bargaining with the West and not as a way of realizing the fundamental defense and commercial interests of Russia," he was quoted as saying by RIA-Novosti.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 Mar 09 - 08:54 AM

North Korea positions rocket for April liftoff
         
Jean H. Lee, Associated Press Writer – 9 mins ago

SEOUL, South Korea – North Korea has mounted a rocket on a launchpad on its northeast coast, American officials said, putting Pyongyang well on track for a launch the U.S. and South Korea warned Thursday would be a major provocation with serious consequences.

Pyongyang says the rocket will carry a satellite, but regional powers suspect the North will use the launch to test the delivery technology for a long-range missile capable of striking Alaska. They have said the launch — banned by the U.N. Security Council in 2006 — would trigger sanctions.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton warned such a "provocative act" could jeopardize the stalled talks on supplying North Korea with aid and other concessions in exchange for dismantling its nuclear program.

"We intend to raise this violation of the Security Council resolution, if it goes forward, in the U.N.," Clinton said Wednesday in Mexico City. "This provocative action in violation of the U.N. mandate will not go unnoticed, and there will be consequences."

North Korea responded Thursday by threatening "strong steps" if the Security Council criticizes the launch. Any challenge to its bid to send the satellite into space would mean an immediate end to nuclear disarmament talks, the Foreign Ministry said in a statement carried by the state-run Korean Central News Agency.

The statement did not specify what action the North would take.

more

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Mar 09 - 07:57 AM

Japan OKs deployment of missile defense system
         
Mari Yamaguchi, Associated Press Writer – 10 mins ago

TOKYO – Japan's military mobilized Friday to protect the country from any threat if North Korea's looming rocket launch fails, ordering two missile-equipped destroyers to the Sea of Japan and sending batteries of Patriot missile interceptors to protect the northern coastline.

Pyongyang plans to launch its Kwangmyongsong-2 satellite April 4-8, a moved that has stoked already heightened tensions in the region. The U.S., Japan and South Korea suspect the North will use the launch to test the delivery technology for a long-range missile capable of striking Alaska.

Japan has said that it will shoot down any dangerous objects that fall its way if the launch doesn't go off successfully. Tokyo, however, has been careful to say that it will not intervene unless its territory is in danger.

The North said earlier this month that any attack on the satellite would be an act of war.

South Korea and the U.S. prepared deployments of their own. Seoul is also dispatching an Aegis-equipped Sejong the Great destroyer off the east coast to monitor the launch, a military official in Seoul said. He asked not to be named because he was not authorized to speak to the media.

Two U.S. Aegis-equipped ships, docked at a South Korea port, will set sail in coming days, U.S. military spokesman Kim Yong-kyu said.

more

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 Apr 09 - 06:54 AM

"Consider Obama's speech. Referring to North Korea, which a few hours earlier had taken a break from six-party talks to test a rocket that could be used for long-range missiles, Obama said: "Now is the time for a strong international response. . . . All nations must come together to build a stronger, global regime. And that's why we must stand shoulder to shoulder to pressure the North Koreans to change course."

In other words: We'll all huff and puff about North Korea, and standing shoulder to shoulder we can pat ourselves on the back for our commitment to a world without nuclear weapons. In the meantime, the United States will do nothing to destroy North Korea's nuclear or missile capability, or to topple its political regime.

Obama also addressed Iran, saying that country's "nuclear and ballistic missile activity poses a real threat," which justifies some (limited) missile defense efforts in Europe. But Obama's real hope is for dialogue with Iran, in which he will present the regime with "a clear choice":

"We want Iran to take its rightful place in the community of nations, politically and economically. We will support Iran's right to peaceful nuclear energy with rigorous inspections. That's a path that the Islamic Republic can take. Or the government can choose increased isolation, international pressure, and a potential nuclear arms race in the region that will increase insecurity for all."

Obviously, Obama recommends the first path. But notice what he didn't do:

He didn't say that a nuclear-armed Iranian regime is unacceptable. He didn't express a commitment to preventing such an outcome, or confidence that the United States and international community would prevent such an outcome. He simply suggested that it wouldn't be optimal for Iran to choose that outcome. And if the rulers of the Islamic republic disagree? In the very speech in which Obama outlined his vision of a world without nuclear weapons, he weakened America's stand against Iran's nuclear weapons program.

So while Obama talks of a future without nuclear weapons, the trajectory we are on today is toward a nuclear- and missile-capable North Korea and Iran -- and a far more dangerous world. "

whole article

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

Confused on North Korea

Once again, the U.S. response to a provocation from Pyongyang is muddled.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009; Page A22

THE DEFINING characteristic of U.S. policy toward North Korea -- incoherence -- doesn't seem to have changed much as the Bush administration has given way to that of Barack Obama. On Sunday, Mr. Obama treated North Korea's launch of an intercontinental missile like an emergency: Woken in Prague at 4:30 a.m. by his aides, he sternly declared that "rules must be binding" and "violations must be punished," and dispatched his U.N. ambassador to seek an immediate resolution from the Security Council.

The council, however, quickly balked at sanctioning the regime of Kim Jong Il -- and understandably so. Just two days before the much-expected missile test, Mr. Obama's special envoy for North Korea, Stephen W. Bosworth, had publicly declared that "pressure is not the most productive line of approach" in dealing with the North. "After the dust of the missile settles a bit," he said, the administration's priority would be persuading Pyongyang to return to negotiations regarding its nuclear program.

Mr. Bosworth offered to go to Pyongyang "whenever it appears to be useful" to conduct bilateral talks -- something the regime has always craved. And he promised "incentives": "I think there are things that we can provide and do that the North Koreans would find positive," he told reporters.

Now, it's true that Mr. Bosworth said he thought there also should be "consequences" for the missile test and that U.S. policy should "combine pressure with incentives." But it's hardly surprising, given his statements, that China and Russia would resist new sanctions -- or that North Korea would have fired the missile in spite of U.S. warnings. Why listen to such warnings, when the administration has already made clear that its main response will be to offer more diplomatic attention, sweetened with "incentives" -- in other words, exactly what Mr. Kim was seeking?

The Bush administration tried isolating and pressuring North Korea, then turned to bribe-laden negotiations. Neither approach succeeded in changing the behavior of the regime, which continued to share its nuclear know-how with other rogue states while retaining its probable arsenal of bombs. Mr. Bosworth sounds surprisingly sure that he can break this pattern. "I'm quite confident that with some intense negotiating and diplomatic activity," North Korea's refusal to allow the verification of its plutonium stockpile can be overcome, he said.

Mr. Obama seems to believe that he can increase the pressure on Pyongyang through the reinvigorated global nonproliferation policy he announced in Prague. The measures he proposed are worthy and needed -- such as a new effort to control loose nuclear materials, a ban on the creation of new fissile material for weapons and the creation of an international fuel bank to supply nuclear reactors.

Still, it doesn't seem likely that either the North Korean or Iranian regimes will be swayed by these policies. Such concessions as have been extracted from Mr. Kim in the past have followed tough steps by the United States and China, above all the squeezing of the regime's foreign bank accounts. It's hard to believe that the Obama administration will make more progress than its predecessors without more consistency in administering that kind of medicine.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Apr 09 - 11:03 AM

NKorea vows to restart nuclear reactor, end talks

Hyung-jin Kim, Associated Press Writer – 42 mins ago

SEOUL, South Korea – North Korea vowed Tuesday to restart its nuclear reactor and to boycott international disarmament talks for good in retaliation for the U.N. Security Council's condemnation of its rocket launch.

Russia, voicing regret over the move, urged Pyongyang to return to the negotiating table. The Foreign Ministry called the U.N. statement "legitimate and well-balanced," and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said all sides must stick to the current disarmament process. China, the North's main ally, appealed for calm.

North Korea's denunciation of the council's "hostile" move came just hours after all 15 members, including Beijing and Moscow, unanimously agreed to condemn the April 5 launch as a violation of U.N. resolutions and to tighten sanctions against the regime.

The U.N. statement, issued eight days after the launch, was weaker than the resolution Japan and the United States had pursued but still drew an angry response from Pyongyang, which called it "unjust" and a violation of international law.

North Korea claims it sent a communications satellite into space as part of a peaceful bid to develop its space program.

The U.S. and others call the launch an illicit test of the technology used to fire an intercontinental ballistic missile, even one eventually destined for the U.S.

A Security Council resolution passed in 2006, days after North Korea carried out an underground nuclear test, prohibits Pyongyang from engaging in any ballistic missile-related activity — including launching rockets that use the same delivery technology as missiles mounted with warheads, Washington and other nations say.

The council on Monday demanded an end to the rocket launches and said it will expand sanctions against the communist nation. The council also called for quick resumption of disarmament talks.

President Barack Obama called the statement a "clear and united message" that North Korea's action was unlawful and would result in real consequences, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said.

North Korea, following through on earlier threats to withdraw from international disarmament talks if the council so much as criticized the launch, announced Tuesday it would boycott the 5 1/2-year-old negotiations hosted by China.

"The six-party talks have lost the meaning of their existence, never to recover," the North's Foreign Ministry said in a statement, declaring it would never participate in the talks again and is no longer bound to previous agreements.

Since 2003, envoys from six nations — the two Koreas, the U.S., China, Russia and Japan — have been meeting in Beijing for sporadic negotiations on getting Pyongyang to give up its nuclear program in exchange for aid and other concessions.

Under a 2007 six-party deal, North Korea agreed to disable its main nuclear complex in Yongbyon north of Pyongyang — a key step toward dismantlement — in return for 1 million tons of fuel oil and other concessions. Disablement began later that year.

In June 2008, North Korea famously blew up the cooling tower at Yongbyon in a dramatic show of its commitment to denuclearization.

But disablement came to halt a month later as Pyongyang wrangled with Washington over how to verify its 18,000-page account of past atomic activities. The latest round of talks, in December, failed to push the process forward.

On Tuesday, the North said it would restart nuclear facilities, an apparent reference to its plutonium-producing reactor at Yongbyon. North Korea already is believed to have enough plutonium to produce at least about half a dozen atomic bombs.

One official at the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency said agency inspectors remained onsite at Yongbyon. He asked for anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the issue.

Asked whether there had been any indication that the North was making good on its threats, he said only that the situation "remained status quo." That suggests IAEA cameras and seals remained in place at the facility and that the inspectors continued their monitoring activities.

The Russian foreign minister said all sides must continue denuclearization through the six-party talks.

"Any new international forum to discuss the situation on the Korean Peninsula should not be created," Lavrov told a Moscow news conference. "The negotiators of this forum have reached important agreements that impose obligations on all the parties, not only North Korea."

Analyst Koh Yu-hwan, a North Korea expert at Seoul's Dongguk University, called Pyongyang's move yet another tactic in the regime's bid to get Washington to the negotiating table outside the six-party framework.

"The U.N. statement humiliated North Korea internationally, and that's why North Korea angrily reacted to it," said Atsuhito Isozaki, assistant professor of North Korean politics at Keio University in Japan. "Since China and Russia supported the statement, North Korea feels betrayed."

However, Prof. Yoo Ho-yeol of Korea University in Seoul said Pyongyang will find it difficult to boycott the talks entirely, since that would only serve to further isolate the impoverished country, one of the world's poorest.

China appealed for calm.

"We hope the relevant parties will proceed from the overall interest, exercise calmness and restraint," Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu told a press conference in Beijing on Tuesday.

South Korea, expressing "deep regret," also decided Tuesday to fully join the U.S.-led Proliferation Security Initiative, a program launch in 2003 to halt the spread of weapons of mass destruction, the presidential office said.

The move is bound to further infuriate Pyongyang.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Apr 09 - 02:40 PM

IAEA says North Korea is expelling its inspectors
         

AFP 55 mins ago
VIENNA – The International Atomic Energy Agency says North Korea is expelling its inspectors. The North has also told the U.N. nuclear watchdog that it is reactivating all of its nuclear facilities.

An IAEA statement Tuesday said North Korea has told inspectors to remove seals and cameras from the Yongbyon nuclear site and leave the country as quickly as possible.

The moves reflect anger at U.N. Security Council criticism of the country's latest missile launch.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Apr 09 - 02:42 PM

US: North Korea must cease 'provocative threats'
         

Liz Sidoti, Associated Press Writer – 24 mins ago

WASHINGTON – As North Korea spurned a U.N. condemnation, the Obama White House called on the reclusive communist nation Tuesday to "cease its provocative threats" and respect the international community's will.

Presidential press secretary Robert Gibbs said Pyongyang's vow to restart its nuclear reactor and boycott international disarmament talks is "a serious step in the wrong direction." He said the international community won't accept North Korea "unless it verifiably abandons its pursuit of nuclear weapons."

"We call on North Korea to cease its provocative threats, to respect the will of the international community, and to honor its international commitments and obligations," President Barack Obama's chief spokesman said at his daily briefing with reporters.

His remarks came just as the International Atomic Energy Agency said North Korea is expelling its inspectors and has told the U.N. nuclear watchdog that it is reactivating all of its nuclear facilities.

North Korea is retaliating for the U.N. Security Council's condemnation Monday of the country's recent rocket launch. North Korea has tested a nuclear bomb, but had subsequently agreed to dismantle its nuclear program in return for massive fuel oil shipments arranged in talks with China, Russia, South Korea, the U.S. and Japan.

Under a 2007 six-party deal, North Korea agreed to disable its main nuclear complex in Yongbyon north of Pyongyang — a key step toward dismantlement — in return for 1 million tons of fuel oil and other concessions. Disablement began later that year.

In June 2008, North Korea famously blew up the cooling tower at Yongbyon in a dramatic show of its commitment to denuclearization.

But disablement came to halt a month later as Pyongyang wrangled with Washington over how to verify its 18,000-page account of past atomic activities. The latest round of talks, in December, failed to push the process forward.

On Tuesday, North Korea said it would restart nuclear facilities, an apparent reference to its plutonium-producing reactor at Yongbyon. North Korea already is believed to have enough plutonium to produce at least half a dozen atomic bombs.

Gibbs said the six-party talks offer the country the best path to earning international acceptance, and he said the United States stands ready to work with North Korea and its neighbors through that process.

He said the administration is "quite pleased" with the U.N. Security Council's unanimous condemnation of the rocket launch. The Security Council demanded an end to missile tests and said it will expand sanctions against North Korea.

"We're pleased with what we got," Gibbs said.

He also said the White House expects China to continue to play "a very constructive role" in any dialogue between North Korea and its neighbors.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Apr 09 - 03:21 PM

Iran says US journalist tried behind closed doors
         

Ali Akbar Dareini And Anna Johnson, Associated Press Writers – 1 hr 5 mins ago

TEHRAN, Iran – Iran said Tuesday its national security court put an American journalist on trial behind closed doors on allegations she spied for the U.S. — a charge Washington calls baseless.

The unusually swift one-day trial threatened to anger the U.S. at a time when the Obama administration is showing willingness to engage its longtime adversary after many years of rocky relations.

Roxana Saberi, a 31-year-old dual American-Iranian citizen, was arrested in late January and initially accused of working without press credentials. But an Iranian judge leveled a far more serious allegation against her last week, charging her with spying for the United States.

"Yesterday, the first trial session was held. She presented her final defense," judiciary spokesman Ali Reza Jamshidi told reporters. "The court will issue its verdict within the next two to three weeks."

It was unclear why the trial was moving at such a fast pace — especially because the charges leveled against Saberi were so serious. Under Iranian law, those convicted of spying normally face up to 10 years in prison.

Saberi has been living in Iran for the last six years, working as a freelance reporter for news organizations including National Public Radio and the British Broadcasting Corp. Her father has said his daughter, who grew up in Fargo, North Dakota, was finishing a book on Iran and had planned to return to the United States this year.

Her lawyer, Abdolsamad Khorramshahi, said he was not authorized to speak to the media about the trial, which he was permitted to attend.

"I will comment only after the verdict is issued," he told The Associated Press.

Washington has described the charges as "baseless" and has repeatedly called for Saberi's release. Last week, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said the United States was "deeply concerned" about the espionage charges.

But Jamshidi criticized the U.S. for saying Saberi was innocent and calling for her release.

"That a government expresses an opinion without seeing the indictment is laughable," he told reporters.

One Iran analyst said it was not a coincidence that the charges against Saberi come as Obama is making overtures to Iran.

"There are powerful hard-line factions in Tehran who do their best to torpedo or sabotage efforts to improve (U.S.-Iran) relations because they stand to lose both politically and financially, and I think I would put Roxana's case in that context," said Karim Sadjadpour, an Iran expert at the Washington-based Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090414/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iran_journalist_detained

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 Apr 09 - 03:21 PM

NKorea threatens nuke test if UN doesn't apologize
         

Jae-soon Chang, Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 5 mins ago

SEOUL, South Korea – North Korea warned Wednesday it will fire an intercontinental ballistic missile — or even carry out another nuclear test — unless the U.N. apologizes for condemning the regime's April 5 rocket launch.

By flaunting its rogue nuclear and missile programs, Pyongyang has raised the stakes in the escalating diplomatic tit for tat with the outside world. North Korea also said it would start generating nuclear fuel — an indication the regime will begin enriching uranium, another material used to make an atomic bomb.

North Korea is known for its use of brinksmanship and harsh rhetoric to force the West to react, but the threat of a nuclear test is significant.

Pyongyang conducted its first atomic test in 2006, and is thought to have enough plutonium to make at least half a dozen nuclear bombs. There are no indications, however, that scientists in the North have mastered the technology needed to make a nuclear warhead small enough to fit onto a missile.

Still, North Korea's April 5 rocket launch drew widespread international concern. Pyongyang claims the liftoff was a peaceful bid to send a communications satellite into space, but the U.S., Japan and others saw it as a furtive test of a delivery system capable of sending a long-range missile within striking range of Alaska.

The U.N. Council denounced the launch as a violation of 2006 resolutions barring the North from missile-related activity, and later imposed new sanctions on three North Korean firms.

Within hours of the sanctions, the North claimed it had begun reprocessing spent nuclear fuel rods at its Yongbyon nuclear complex to harvest weapons-grade plutonium — a clear setback to years of negotiations on disarming the communist country.

The Security Council must apologize for infringing on the North's sovereignty and "withdraw all its unreasonable and discriminative resolutions and decisions" against the North, the Foreign Ministry said in a statement carried by the official Korean Central News Agency.

Otherwise, the regime "will be compelled to take additional self-defensive measures," including "nuclear tests and test-firings of intercontinental ballistic missiles," the ministry said.

The U.S. criticized North Korea's latest maneuver.

"Let me just say very clearly that these threats only further isolate the North," said U.S. State Department spokesman Robert Wood. "We again call on the North Koreans to come back to the (negotiating) table ... We've heard these types of threats before."

South Korea's Foreign Ministry expressed "serious concerns" about the warnings, and criticized Pyongyang for challenging the international community.

"We make it clear that the international responsibility for worsening the situation will be entirely on North Korea," the ministry said in a statement.

Prof. Kim Yong-hyun at Seoul's Dongguk University called the North's threat rhetoric designed to trigger a response from the Obama administration, which has yet to fully reveal its North Korea policy.

"The North is trying to maximize the stakes as the United States keeps ignoring it," he said. But the expert also said the regime could gradually put the threat into action if Washington fails to respond as it wishes.

Yang Moo-jin, a professor at the University of North Korean Studies, said the North appears to have begun preparations for nuclear and missile tests, noting its "unrealistic, unprecedented" demand: a U.N. apology.

He said North Korea's statement Wednesday that it will begin building a light-water reactor — another way of producing fuel — undoubtedly means Pyongyang will begin enriching uranium, a material used to make atomic bombs.

Yang said Pyongyang is angling for direct talks with Washington, with which it currently has no diplomatic relations. He said that offer would convince the North to withdraw its nuclear and missile threats.

The current nuclear standoff flared in late 2002 after Washington raised allegations that Pyongyang had a clandestine nuclear program based on enriched uranium in addition to a separate one based on plutonium. The North has strongly denied the allegations.

Since 2003, five nations — China, Japan, South Korea Russia and the U.S. — have been negotiating with North Korea on a disarmament-for-aid deal.

Months after its 2006 nuclear test, North Korea agreed in February 2007 to disable its main nuclear complex in Yongbyon north of Pyongyang in return for 1 million tons of fuel oil and other concessions. Disablement began in November of that year.

By June 2008, North Korea had completed eight of 11 steps toward disablement, and blew up the Yongbyon cooling tower in a dramatic show of its commitment to denuclearization.

But the process came to halt weeks later as Pyongyang wrangled with Washington over how to verify its past atomic activities. The latest round of talks, in December, failed to push the process forward.

North Korea formally walked away from the talks after the Security Council condemnation of its rocket launch.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Apr 09 - 09:20 PM

I have just one word for you:   Liechtenstein!

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 May 09 - 10:31 AM

Obama envoy warns NKorea on nuke test, urges talks
         

Jae-soon Chang, Associated Press Writer – 2 hrs 9 mins ago

SEOUL, South Korea – President Barack Obama's top envoy for North Korea warned of "consequences" if the regime pushes ahead with a threatened atomic test and urged Pyongyang to instead return to dialogue with Washington to defuse nuclear tensions.

Stephen Bosworth arrived in Seoul from Beijing just hours after North Korea accused the Obama administration of harboring a hostile policy toward Pyongyang, saying it would expand its nuclear arsenal in response.

"Nothing would be expected from the U.S., which remains unchanged in its hostility toward its dialogue partner," North Korea's Foreign Ministry said in a statement carried Friday by state media. The North "will bolster its nuclear deterrent as it has already clarified."

Bosworth urged North Korea — which shocked the world by conducting a nuclear test in 2006 — not to carry out another atomic test, as the communist regime has threatened to do in retaliation for U.N. sanctions its recent rocket launch.

"If the North Koreans decide to carry out a second nuclear test, we will deal with consequences of that. And there will be consequences," Bosworth told reporters, without elaborating.

"But we can't control at this stage what North Korea does. We certainly very much hope that they will not do a second nuclear test," he said.

However, Bosworth said Washington is ready and willing to hold direct talks with Pyongyang.

"We would not interpret our policy as being hostile ... President Obama has stressed on numerous occasions that the door to dialogue remains open," he told reporters after talks with Seoul's foreign minister. He said he hopes Pyongyang realizes "it is in their interest to continue dialogue and negotiation on a multilateral basis."

Former President George W. Bush once refused direct talks with North Korea — a country that he termed as part of an "axis of evil" — but agreed to allow an envoy engage in bilateral talks with North Koreans after Pyongyang conducted the nuclear test.

While campaigning for the presidency, Obama went further and said he would be willing to meet with North Korean leader Kim Jong Il if it helps denuclearization. His administration has maintained support for the ongoing six-party nuclear negotiations, and Bosworth this week also offered direct talks between U.S. and North Korean envoys.

Analyst Paik Hak-soon at the Sejong Institute think tank said the North is trying to force Washington into higher-level direct talks in an attempt to reach a grand give-and-take deal. He said the regime appears to think the current envoy, Bosworth, is not senior enough.

"North Korea is applying maximum pressure on the United States to have bilateral talks in an attempt to restructure" the entire nuclear game, Paik said, adding that Pyongyang appears to be seeking a higher-level envoy with more dealmaking power than Bosworth.

Bosworth's trip to the region came as North Korea continued to ratchet up nuclear tensions following its controversial April 5 rocket launch.

Pyongyang characterized the launch as a successful bid to send a satellite into space. The U.S. and others saw it as a violation of U.N. Security Council resolutions barring the North from ballistic missile-related activity since the same technology can be used to fire an intercontinental missile mounted with nuclear arms.

The U.N. Security Council condemned the launch and punished the regime by slapping sanctions on three North Korean firms.

North Korea retaliated by quitting the nuclear negotiations, kicking out U.S. and U.N. inspectors and warning it may conduct nuclear or long-range missile tests if the U.N. and Washington refuse to apologize for the censure.

South Korea's Chosun Ilbo newspaper recently reported "brisk" activity has been detected at North Korea's nuclear test site, citing an unnamed South Korean government source. The report could not be confirmed.

Pyongyang is believed to have enough plutonium to make at least a half-dozen atomic bombs but not the technology required to fit a nuclear warhead on a long-range missile.

The impoverished, isolated regime agreed in 2007 to begin dismantling its nuclear program in exchange for 1 million tons of fuel oil and other concessions. Disablement began later that year, with Pyongyang blowing up the cooling tower at its main nuclear facility in June 2008 in a dramatic show of its commitment to denuclearization.

But disablement came to a halt a month later as Pyongyang wrangled with Washington over how to verify its past atomic activities. The latest round of talks in December failed to push the process forward.

Bosworth and nuclear talks envoy Sung Kim had no set plans to visit Pyongyang during his regional tour, which also includes stops in Tokyo and Moscow, the State Department said.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 May 09 - 09:04 AM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/18/AR2009051802583.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 May 09 - 09:09 AM

In a Nuclear Minefield

By Richard Cohen
Tuesday, May 19, 2009

In 1947, a British lawyer with no experience in the region arrived in India to draw lines on a map. Within several weeks, Cyril Radcliffe had severed the future Pakistan from India, helping to create the conditions that have since resulted in three wars and the arming of both nations with nuclear weapons. People ask what America would do if Pakistan lost control of its nukes. Wrong question. Ask instead what India might do.

That country has as many as 100 nuclear weapons and the missiles, as well as the airplanes, submarines and surface ships, to launch them. Pakistan also has around 100 nuclear weapons but lacks India's extensive delivery systems. Nonetheless, the two countries have what it takes to blow each other to kingdom come. They also have the reason. They hate each other.

The stakes in this part of the world are worth reciting because they are both terrifying and virtually unprecedented. Yet in Congress, the comparison is made to the Vietnam War. Rep. David Obey, the House Appropriations Committee chairman, has suggested that the war in Afghanistan and the effort to stabilize Pakistan have an open-ended and futile Vietnam quality to them. He wants to give the Obama administration one year to show progress -- or get out.

Others make the argument that we can only make matters worse. First "do no harm," counsels Andrew Bacevich, a former Army colonel and the author of the best-seller "The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism." It is his view that the problems of Afghanistan and Pakistan are beyond us, that America has neither the power nor the know-how to do much in this vast, complex region. The trick, he says, is merely to have a plan to secure Pakistan's nuclear weapons if and when the time comes.

If there is a Vietnam analogy, it may be this: Containment can be impossible. The war in Vietnam became the war in Cambodia and the war in Laos. In the end, it meant a bloodbath for the entire region. Cambodia simply went berserk, a horror that is still hard to comprehend. So, too, the unintended consequences of the war in Afghanistan. Pakistan has now been drawn into the fighting with the Taliban. The country is even less stable than it used to be. Once again, we hear that term "collateral damage." This means that the wrong people are being killed.

The challenge for President Obama is to explain to the American people why Afghanistan and potentially Pakistan are worth the lives of yet more Americans. So far, Obama has stuck pretty close to the message that he is determined to eliminate al-Qaeda -- and more power to him. But that is too little, too late. The Taliban has already spilled over the border. A bit of nation-building is what Pakistan needs. That will take time -- considerably more than the year Obey and others are willing to grant.

The relevant history here may not be Vietnam at all. It could be World War I. The assassination of a single man somehow set off a chain reaction in which millions were killed and, after a pause, it all resumed under a different name: World War II. (Books are still being written about the cause of World War I.) Now, though, the stakes are so much greater. The region is a nuclear neighborhood, a pharmacy for nuclear addicts with Pakistan choosing to add even more weapons instead of -- just an idea -- opening some schools. The region is roiled. The only constant is enmity.

The critics of Obama's policy for the region are not easily dismissed. Vietnam has its lessons; Iraq, too. What's more, they have their cumulative effect. A kind of national weariness has set in. Why us? Why is it that Americans are always asked to risk their lives? Where the hell is everyone else?

These are hard questions to answer. But an even harder question could someday come after a nuclear catastrophe when people demand to know why nothing much was done to head it off. The answer cannot be that our year was up.

To the Indians, last year's Mumbai terrorist attacks seemed ominously like the sort of sea-land operation only a government -- or a rogue element -- could pull off. They look at Pakistan, which in turn looks back at India across a line drawn long ago by an Englishman. He went home after a brief stay. It will take us much longer.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 May 09 - 07:48 AM

Iran says launches missile with 2,000 km range

Reuters
Wednesday, May 20, 2009; 6:21 AM

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran launched a missile with a range of around 2,000 km (1,200 miles) on Wednesday and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said the Islamic state could send any attacker "to hell," official media reported.

The stated range of the surface-to-surface Sejil 2 missile would be almost as far as another Iranian missile, Shahab 3, and military analysts say it could enable Iran to reach Israel and U.S. bases in the Gulf.

The announcement is likely to arouse further concern in the West and Israel about Iran's military ambitions. The United States and its allies suspect the Islamic Republic is seeking to build nuclear bombs. Tehran denies the charge.

"The Sejil 2 missile, which has an advanced technology, was launched today ... and it landed exactly on the target," the official IRNA news agency quoted Ahmadinejad as saying.

He was speaking during a rally in the northern Semnan province, where IRNA said the launch took place. State television said it was a test and showed footage of a missile soaring into the sky, leaving a vapor trail.

U.S. President Barack Obama is seeking rapprochement with Iran after three decades of mutual hostility. But, like his predecessor George W. Bush, he has not ruled out military action if diplomatic efforts fail to resolve the nuclear row.

Israeli leaders have raised U.S. concern by hinting at pre-emptive strikes if they decide diplomacy has failed.

Iran has said it would respond to any attack by targeting U.S. interests and America's ally Israel, as well as closing the Strait of Hormuz, a vital route for world oil supplies.

Ahmadinejad said Iran had the power to "send to hell" any military base from where "a bullet" was fired against the country. He singled out Israel, which Iran usually refers to as the Zionist regime and does not recognize.

"Right now the Zionist regime ... threatens Iran militarily with its false threats," Ahmadinejad said.

The hardline president, who often rails against Iran's foes, faces a challenge in Iran's June 12 presidential election from moderate politicians seeking detente with the West.

Iran said in November it test fired a Sejil missile, describing it as a new generation of surface-to-surface missile. Tehran said it was ready to defend itself against any attacker.

Washington said at the time that the test highlighted the need for a missile defense system it plans to base in Poland and the Czech Republic to counter threats from "rogue states."

The Obama administration is reviewing the missile shield project for cost effectiveness and viability, though he has said Washington would continue to research and develop the plans.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 20 May 09 - 12:14 PM

Iran keeps saying they are prepared to defend themselves. The US and Israel keep talking about attacking Iran, not defensively, but preemptively. It's not Iran that is the rogue state.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 20 May 09 - 12:14 PM

That last was 1,000.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: mayomick
Date: 20 May 09 - 01:42 PM

Congrats on that Carol.
There's something sinister but amusing in all the hypocrisies involved in this business about whether Iran wants to acquire nuclear weapons or not .We're all caught up in the deceit . Everybody knows the truth , but the pro-war rightwing can't afford to give the proof , while the antiwar left doesn't want to tell the truth for obvious reasons. So we have go through the charades of UN inspectors threats and deadlines .

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 20 May 09 - 02:12 PM

The truth is that all of the drum beating for war against Iran has nothing whatever to do with the national security of anyone at all, and everything to do with the ambitions of the US and Israel for regional (and in the case of the US, global) hegemony.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 22 May 09 - 03:52 PM

Last update - 21:49 22/05/2009   


'1 in 4 Israelis would consider leaving country if Iran gets nukes'

By Ofri Ilani, Haaretz Correspondent



Some 23 percent of Israelis would consider leaving the country if Iran obtains a nuclear weapon, according to a poll conducted on behalf of the Center for Iranian Studies at Tel Aviv University.

Some 85 percent of respondents said they feared the Islamic Republic would obtain an atomic bomb, 57 percent believed the new U.S. initiative to engage in dialogue with Tehran would fail and 41 percent believed Israel should strike Iran's nuclear installations without waiting to see whether or how the talks develop.

"The findings are worrying because they reflect an exaggerated and unnecessary fear," Prof. David Menashri, the head of the Center, said. "Iran's leadership is religiously extremist but calculated and it understands an unconventional attack on Israel is an act of madness that will destroy Iran. Sadly, the survey shows the Iranian threat works well even without a bomb and thousands of Israelis [already] live in fear and contemplate leaving the country."

Women are more fearful than men that Iran will obtain nuclear weapons: 83 percent of female respondents said they fear such a scenario in contrast to 78 percent of men; 39 percent of women said they would consider leaving the country in such an event as opposed to 22 percent of men.

Age was also a factor for respondents: 89 percent of those aged 42 and above said they were fearful of a nuclear Iran, in comparison to 61 percent of those aged 18 to 41.

Some 80 percent of left-wing voters and 67 percent of right-wing voters expressed deep concern over a nuclear Iran. Respondents describing themselves as centrists were the most fretful, with 88 percent saying they feared Iran would obtain the bomb.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 22 May 09 - 04:02 PM

1 in 4 Israelis already want to leave Israel, even if Iran never gets any nukes.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 22 May 09 - 04:15 PM

CarolC,

Care to support your statemnet with facts, or do you just want us to believe it because YOU said so?


9 out of 10 Palestinians want to kill Jews.

( see who they elected in Gaza, who they support, and what they do when offered a peaceful settlement.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 22 May 09 - 04:40 PM

I already supported that one with statistics, on the WW 3 thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 22 May 09 - 04:45 PM

BTW, voting for Hamas and insisting on being given their freedom does not mean they want to kill Jews. A peaceful settlement is not necessarily the same thing as freedom, and nobody in their right mind would settle for peace in a prison rather than fighting for their freedom. (What's that phrase we like to use here in this country? Live free or die?) It only means they want their freedom and they think that Hamas is more likely to help them get it than Fatah. They're probably right about that, too.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 25 May 09 - 09:48 AM

Obama: N. Korea 'recklessly challenging' the world
         

Merrill Hartson, Associated Press Writer – 24 mins ago


WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama said Monday that North Korea's latest nuclear test should be "a matter of grave concern to all nations" and accused Pyongyang of behaving recklessly and defying international will.

Obama also said in an early-morning statement that the United States "will continue working with our allies and partners" in multilateral talks and will hold consultations with members of the U.N. Security Council on it and a subsequent series of test-firings of short-range ground-to-air missiles.

In Pyongyang earlier, North Korea said that it had carried out a powerful underground nuclear test — much larger than one conducted in 2006. The regime also test-fired three short-range, ground-to-air missiles later Monday from the same northeastern site where it launched a rocket last month, the Yonhap news agency reported, citing unnamed sources.

The rocket liftoff, widely believed to be a cover for a test of its long-range missile technology, drew censure from the U.N. Security Council, which scheduled a meeting in New York for later Monday.

Reining in Pyongyang's nuclear program has been a continuing problem for U.S. administrations, dating to the Clinton administration. Former President George W. Bush labeled North Korea as a country that was part of an international "axis of evil," but the United States subsequently removed Pyongyang from its list of official state sponsors of terrorism when it shut down a nuclear installation late in the Bush administration.

The question now is calculating precisely the nature of a threat and what are options are available to the Obama administration.

"We are gravely concerned by North Korea's claims. We are analyzing the data," the State Department said in a statement. "The U.S. Geological Survey confirmed that a seismic event took place consistent with a test. We are consulting with our Six Party and U.N. Security Council partners on next steps."

Gen. James Cartwright, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, last month dismissed an earlier rocket launch as a failure_ both technologically and as an effort to market its missiles to other countries.

"Would you buy from somebody that had failed three times in a row and never been successful?" he asked during a briefing at the Pentagon. Cartwright said the abortive missile launch showed that North Korea had failed to master the midair thrust shift from one rocket booster to another, an integral part of ballistic missile technology.

In his statement Monday, Obama noted that North Korea had "conducted a nuclear test in violation of international law."

"It appears to also have attempted a short range missile launch," the president said in his statement. "These actions, while not a surprise given its statements and actions to date, are a matter of grave concern to all nations. North Korea's attempts to develop nuclear weapons, as well as its ballistic missile program, constitute a threat to international peace and security."

"By acting in blatant defiance of the United Nations Security Council," he said, "North Korea is directly and recklessly challenging the international community. North Korea's behavior increases tensions and undermines stability in Northeast Asia."

"Such provocations will only serve to deepen North Korea's isolation. It will not find international acceptance unless it abandons its pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery."

Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, said he believed the latest series of tests "just speak to the growing belligerence on the part of North Korea ... the growing defiance of international law."

Mullen, appearing Monday morning on CBS's "The Early Show" show, said that "all of those things point to a country I think continues to destabilize that region and in the long term, should they continue to develop a nuclear weapons program, poses a grave threat to the United States."

Mullen, making appearances on the network morning news shows to pay tribute to troops on Memorial Day, told NBC's "Today" program that he was "very confident we can deal with a threat posed by North Korea."

"It's not just the U.S., but there are many other countries that are equally concerned," the admiral said. "This was not an unanticipated test on the part of North Korea, should we be able to confirm it. ... It's a country that continues to isolate itself, and the international community must continue to bring pressure to make sure they don't achieve a nuclear weapons program that can threaten other countries and the U.S. as well."

He did not discuss whether there were any changes in U.S. military alert status.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, leading a congressional delegation on a tour in China, said, "If today's announcement is true, these tests would be a clear violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1718, which requires that North Korea not conduct any further nuclear tests. Such action by North Korea is unacceptable and cause for great alarm."

The California Democrat said she and other members of her delegation planned to urge Chinese leaders to use their influence to get the North to return to six-nation talks aimed at ending its nuclear program.

Wendy Sherman, a former Clinton administration adviser on North Korean policy, told The Associated Press: "We're sending the message that there is international law; there are international norms; that countries will be isolated from the international community."

"U.S. officials had expected that North Korea might conduct a second nuclear test," she said. "That said, this is as President Obama said, 'of grave concern.' "

North Korea earlier this year rejected a plan for additional U.S. food assistance and kicked out five groups distributing American aid in the country.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 25 May 09 - 10:35 AM

Iran sends warships to Gulf of Aden
- navy
Mon May 25, 2009 5:43pm IST

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran has sent six warships to international waters, including the Gulf of Aden, to show its ability to confront any foreign threats, its naval commander said on Monday.

Admiral Habibollah Sayyari, quoted by the ISNA news agency, made the announcement five days after Iran said it test-fired a surface-to-surface missile with a range of 2,000 km (1,200 miles), putting Israel and U.S. bases in the area within reach.

Iran said on May 14 it had sent two warships to the Gulf of Aden to protect oil tankers from the world's fifth-largest crude exporter against attacks by pirates but ISNA did not make clear whether they were among the six Sayyari talked about.

Iranian waters stretch along the Gulf, the Strait of Hormuz and the Sea of Oman. Iran has threatened to block the Strait of Hormuz, through which about 40 percent of the world's traded oil is shipped, if it were attacked over its nuclear programme.

"Iran has dispatched six ... warships to international waters and the Gulf of Aden region in an historically unprecedented move by the Iranian Navy," Sayyari told a gathering of armed forces officials, IRNA reported.

Sayyari said that preserving Iran's territorial integrity in its southern waters called for the "perseverance and firmness" of the navy.

The move to dispatch the warships "is indicative of the country's high military capability in confronting any foreign threat on the country's shores," Sayyari said.

The ISNA report did not mention the threat of pirate attacks, which, fuelled by large ransoms, have continued almost unabated despite the presence of an armada of foreign warships patrolling the Indian Ocean and Gulf of Aden.

In January, pirates released an Iranian-chartered cargo ship carrying 36,000 tonnes of wheat to Iran from Germany that was seized in November. In March, a regional maritime official said Somali villagers had detained another Iranian vessel.

Nearly 20,000 ships pass through the Gulf of Aden each year, heading to and from the Suez Canal. Seven percent of world oil consumption passed through the Gulf of Aden in 2007, according to Lloyd's Marine Intelligence Unit.

On May 20, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Iran had tested a missile that defence analysts say could hit Israel and U.S. bases in the Gulf, a move likely to fuel concern about Tehran's nuclear ambitions.

The United States and its allies suspect the Islamic Republic is seeking to build nuclear bombs, a charge Tehran denies, but President Barack Obama has offered a new beginning of diplomatic engagement with Iran if it "unclenches its fist".

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 25 May 09 - 10:37 AM

Iran's Ahmadinejad rejects Western nuclear proposal

Mon May 25, 2009 9:30am EDT

By Parisa Hafezi

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Monday rejected a Western proposal for it to "freeze" its nuclear work in return for no new sanctions and ruled out any talks with major powers on the issue.

The comments by the conservative president, who is seeking re-election in a June 12 presidential vote, are likely to further disappoint the U.S. administration of President Barack Obama, which is seeking to engage Iran diplomatically.

The United States, Russia, China, France, Germany and Britain said in April they would invite Iran to a meeting to try and find a diplomatic solution to the nuclear row.

The West accuses Iran of secretly developing atomic weapons. Iran, the world's fifth-largest oil exporter, denies the charge and says it only wants nuclear power to generate electricity.

Breaking with past U.S. policy of shunning direct talks with Iran, Obama's administration said it would join such discussions with Tehran from now on.

"Our talks (with major powers) will only be in the framework of cooperation for managing global issues and nothing else. We have clearly announced this," Ahmadinejad said.

"The nuclear issue is a finished issue for us," he told a news conference.

He was asked about a so-called "freeze-for-freeze" proposal first put forward last year under which Iran would freeze expansion of its nuclear program in return for the U.N. Security Council halting further sanctions against Tehran.

Western diplomats say the proposal remains on the table. Ahmadinejad last month said Iran had prepared its own package of proposals to end the stalemate.

"We will not allow anyone to negotiate with us outside the agency's regulations and issues," he said on Monday, referring to the U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency. "From now on we will continue our path in the framework of the agency."

Obama has offered a new beginning of diplomatic engagement with Iran if it "unclenches its fist," but Washington has not ruled out military action if diplomacy fails.

Ahmadinejad, facing a challenge in the election from moderates advocating detente with the West, has made angry rhetoric against the United States and it allies his trademark since he came to power in 2005.

Iran says it is ready for "constructive" talks but has repeatedly rejected demands to halt sensitive uranium enrichment which can have both civilian and military purposes.

Asked about North Korea's nuclear test on Monday, Ahmadinejad said: "In principle we oppose the production, expansion and the use of weapons of mass destruction."

He said Iran had no missile or nuclear cooperation with North Korea.

Ahmadinejad also proposed a debate with Obama at U.N. headquarters in New York, "regarding the roots of world problems."

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 25 May 09 - 10:40 AM

Half of Israelis back immediate strike on Iran

May 24 02:36 AM US/Eastern

Just over half of Israelis back an immediate attack on the nuclear facilities of arch-foe Iran but the rest want to wait and see the results of US diplomacy, according to a poll released on Sunday.
Fifty-one percent support an immediate Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear sites, while 49 percent believe the Jewish state should await the outcome of efforts by the US administration to engage with the Islamic republic, said the survey published by Tel Aviv University.

But 74 percent of those questioned said they believe that new US President Barack Obama's efforts will not stop the Islamic republic from acquiring atomic weapons.

Israel, widely considered to be the Middle East's sole if undeclared nuclear armed state, considers Iran its arch-foe after repeated statements by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for the Jewish state to be "wiped off the map."

Israel and Washington accuse Iran of trying to develop atomic weapons under the guise of a civilian nuclear programme, a charge Tehran has repeatedly denied.

Opinion is split among left- and right-wingers about whether to attack Iran's nuclear sites, with 63 percent of those leaning to the right favouring a strike, compared with 38 percent of those leaning to the left, the poll said.

It was carried out by Tel Aviv University's Centre for Iranian Studies among 509 Israeli adults and had a 4.5-percent margin of error.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 25 May 09 - 12:05 PM

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1087331.html

Israel's military option against Iran has died. The death warrant was issued courtesy of the new U.S. administration led by Barack Obama.

All the administration's senior officials, from the president to his vice president, Joe Biden, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and others are sending strong, clear hints that Israel does not have permission to strike Iran. Yet, given their familiarity with the Israeli client, they have not made do with simple hints and intimations. Washington dispatched the new CIA director, Leon Panetta, to Israel. Panetta made clear to Netanyahu, in so many words, that an Israeli attack would create "big trouble."

Perhaps Israel at one point had just a small window of opportunity to exercise the military option, or, in other words, the possibility of attacking sites in Iran to prevent it from developing nuclear weapons. This is assuming, of course, that Israel indeed has the military capability for carrying out such a mission - an assumption that raises many questions. This is a mission that requires gathering pinpoint intelligence, to identify the precise targets without harming thousands of innocent civilians.
        
Simply put, one of the targets of such a strike is the uranium enrichment facility in Isfahan, which lies in the heart of a congested civilian population. A realistic military option is also contingent on fighter jets finding undetected routes, as well as carrying a sufficient payload of bombs and missiles to inflict heavy damage on the targets.

Let us assume that Israel does, indeed, have a reasonable military capability which would enable it to strike at the targets, inflict heavy damage and set Iran's nuclear program back a few years. The opportunity to realize this capability arguably presented itself to Israel a few years ago. Iran at the time was subject to an intense international offensive. Inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency repeatedly exposed its lies and levied sanctions against the Tehran regime.

Threats made by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to wipe Israel from the map and his insistence on denying the Holocaust aroused great sympathy for Israel. This sympathy was buttressed by the Olmert government's willingness to hold peace talks with Syria and seek an agreement with the Palestinians. Above all, this friendly international atmosphere was backed by an accommodating Republican administration and a president who was ready to support (or to turn a blind eye to) any Israeli operation. In addition, Iran's ability to respond to an attack with missiles was limited.

But all this is now in the past. The sanctions are stuck. Ahmadinejad has, for the time being, softened his bellicose rhetoric. The production of Iranian missiles has doubled.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is not ready to recognize the right of the Palestinians to a state of their own, nor does he have any intention of holding serious negotiations with Syria, regarding withdrawal from the Golan Heights. This position reduces international support for Israel. Yet, most importantly, there is a new president in Washington, one who has outlined a new policy vis-a-vis Iran. He has announced the start of negotiations with Iran, and even though he mentioned that the talks will have to be concluded by the end of this year, he did not set a clear deadline. All these factors, including the explicit statements made by administration officials, put Israel in its place.

The supreme tenet of Israeli defense policy states that Jerusalem must not launch any strategic initiative that stands in contradiction, or places in harm's way, the clear interests of the United States. This stance has underpinned every fateful decision taken by Israel relating to matters of war and peace. Israel embarked on the Six-Day War only after it was convinced that the U.S. would not oppose. In the hours leading up to the Yom Kippur War, Israel refrained from launching a preemptive strike for fear that Washington would blame it for starting the war. Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982 only after Defense Minister Ariel Sharon came under the impression that the U.S. would view the move with understanding. During the first Gulf War in 1991, the U.S. did not permit Israel to respond to Iraqi scud missiles, and Israel obliged.

If this tenet remains the cornerstone of defense policy, then Israel once again will not act against the explicit wishes of the U.S. Thus, when Israeli leaders say that "all options are open," this is nothing but a dog's bark being louder than his bite. Or, if you will, a mouse that roars. If the U.S. does not alter its policy, then Israel no longer has the military option at its disposal - if it ever had such an option at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 25 May 09 - 12:43 PM

You know that last source is entirely worthless- it contradicts you!


"In the hours leading up to the Yom Kippur War, Israel refrained from launching a preemptive strike for fear that Washington... "

And you have in the past claimed that Israel DID strike pre-emptively- so by your analyasis, anything they say is suspect.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 25 May 09 - 12:54 PM

I don't agree with everything in it. Just showing that there is another Israeli perspective on this subject besides the one being constantly harped on by the above poster.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 25 May 09 - 01:08 PM

Exactly...

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Lox
Date: 25 May 09 - 01:20 PM

Kim Jong Il is a menace.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 25 May 09 - 01:40 PM

"Fifty-one percent support an immediate Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear sites, while 49 percent believe the Jewish state should await the outcome of efforts by the US administration to engage with the Islamic republic, said the survey published by Tel Aviv University. "


Harp?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 25 May 09 - 03:49 PM

Someone needs a good biffing here!

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 25 May 09 - 05:16 PM

UN chief sees 'violation' if NKorea test confirmed
AP - Monday, May 25, 2009 4:02:08 PM
By EDITH M. LEDERER

APThe U.N. chief said he strongly deplored a second nuclear test by North Korea that clearly violated a United Nations Security Council resolution, as the council called an emergency session Monday to discuss the matter.

The five permanent veto-wielding members of the council -- the United States, Russia, China, Britain and France -- met behind closed doors ahead of the meeting of the full 15-member council.

Japan, which called for the emergency meeting, said North Korea's "irresponsible" nuclear test and a missile launch in April had challenged the authority of the U.N.'s most powerful body "and the response must be firm."

"It's a very clear challenge," said Japan's U.N. Ambassador Yukio Takasu, a non-permanent council member. "So therefore we need a really, really clear and firm message from this -- preferably a resolution."

Takasu refused to say whether Japan would seek new sanctions against North Korea, saying he wanted to consult with other council members. "The important thinking is a unified message from the council," he said.

North Korea claimed it carried out a powerful underground nuclear test Monday that was much larger than one it conducted in 2006. Russia's Defense Ministry confirmed an atomic explosion occurred early Monday in northeastern North Korea and estimated that its strength was similar to bombs that devastated Hiroshima and Nagasaki in World War II.

"I sincerely hope that the Security Council will take necessary corresponding measures," U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon told The Associated Press during a visit to Copenhagen, declining to specify what further measures, or sanctions, he would urge the council members to take.

Ban, who was in the Danish capital for a global business summit on climate change, said he would closely monitor the meeting in New York.

A statement issued by his spokeswoman later Monday said "the secretary-general strongly deplores the conduct of an underground nuclear test by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, in clear and grave violation of the relevant Security Council resolutions."

New testing by North Korea would undermine peace and security in the region, Ban told AP, and he urged the communist nation "to refrain from taking any actions which will deteriorate the situation."

He urged the Security Council in the statement "to send out a strong and unified message, conducive to achieving the goal of denuclearization of the Korean peninsula and peace and security in the region."

The 2006 U.N. resolution, adopted after North Korea conducted its first nuclear test explosion in October of that year, banned the North from conducting further nuclear tests.

Ban also said the announcement from North Korea's official news agency that it carried out an underground nuclear test Monday "will create negative impact to ongoing negotiation on nuclear disarmament."

"They should have come to the dialogue table and resolved all the issues through peaceful means," he said.

Pyongyang also test-fired three short-range, ground-to-air missiles Monday from the same northeastern site where it launched a rocket last month,

More World Photos

Troops in Iraq, Afghanistan honor their fallen
98
1

South Korea's Yonhap news agency reported, citing unnamed sources. U.N. Security Council resolutions bar North Korea from engaging in any ballistic missile-related activity.

North Korea's actions swiftly drew international condemnation.

President Barack Obama said the United States would work with allies around the world to "stand up to" North Korea. He said the latest nuclear tests "pose a grave threat to the peace and security of the world."

European Union Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso said he hoped "the international community will be very clear in its reaction. I also encourage the North to refrain from all kinds of provocation."

Even China joined the chorus of disapproval, saying it "resolutely opposed" the test.

The U.N. Security Council last month rebuked North Korea for the April 5 rocket liftoff, which many nations saw as a cover for testing its long-range missile technology.

In response, North Korea announced it was quitting disarmament talks and restarting its atomic facilities after the U.N. Security Council imposed sanctions on three major North Korean companies due to Pyongyang's April rocket launch. The six-party talks, which began in 2003, had involved North Korea, South Korea, Russia, China, Japan, and the United States.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 25 May 09 - 05:31 PM

Israeli document: Venezuela sends uranium to Iran

AP - Monday, May 25, 2009 3:08:54 PM
By MARK LAVIE

Venezuela and Bolivia are supplying Iran with uranium for its nuclear program, according to a secret Israeli government report obtained Monday by The Associated Press.

The two South American countries are known to have close ties with Iran, but this is the first allegation that they are involved in the development of Iran's nuclear program, considered a strategic threat by Israel.

"There are reports that Venezuela supplies Iran with uranium for its nuclear program," the Foreign Ministry document states, referring to previous Israeli intelligence conclusions. It added, "Bolivia also supplies uranium to Iran."

The report concludes that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is trying to undermine the United States by supporting Iran.

Venezuela and Bolivia are close allies, and both regimes have a history of opposing U.S. foreign policy and Israeli actions. Venezuela expelled the Israeli ambassador during Israel's offensive in Gaza this year, and Israel retaliated by expelling the Venezuelan envoy. Bolivia cut ties with Israel over the offensive.

There was no immediate comment from officials in Venezuela or Bolivia on the report's allegations.

The three-page document about Iranian activities in Latin America was prepared in advance of a visit to South America by Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon, who will attend a conference of the Organization of American States in Honduras next week. Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman is also scheduled to visit the region.

Israel considers Iran a serious threat because of its nuclear program, development of long-range missiles and frequent references by its president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, to Israel's destruction. Israel dismisses Iran's insistence that its nuclear program is peaceful, charging that the Iranians are building nuclear weapons.

Iran says its nuclear work is aimed only at producing energy. Its enrichment of uranium has increased concerns about its program because that technology can be used both to produce fuel for power plants and to build bombs.

Israel has been pressing for world action to stop the Iranian program. While saying it prefers diplomatic action, Israel has not taken its military option off the table. Experts believe Israel is capable of destroying some of Iran's nuclear facilities in airstrikes.

Iran, under Ahmadinejad, has strengthened its ties with both Venezuela and Bolivia, where it opened an embassy last year. Its alliance with the left-led nations is based largely on their shared antagonism to the United States but is also a way for Iran to lessen its international isolation.

The Israeli government report did not say where the uranium that it alleged the two countries were supplying originated from.

Bolivia has uranium deposits. Venezuela is not currently mining its own estimated 50,000 tons of untapped uranium reserves, according to an analysis published in December by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. The Carnegie report said, however, that recent collaboration with Iran in strategic minerals has generated speculation that Venezuela could mine uranium for Iran.

The Israeli government report also charges that the Iran-backed Hezbollah guerrillas in Lebanon have set up cells in Latin America.

It says Venezuela has issued permits that allow Iranian residents to travel freely in South America.

The report concludes, "Since Ahmadinejad's rise to power, Tehran has been promoting an aggressive policy aimed at bolstering its ties with Latin American countries with the declared goal of 'bringing America to its knees.'"

The document says Venezuela and Bolivia are violating the United Nations Security Council's economic sanctions with their aid to Iran.

As allies against the U.S., Ahmadinejad and Chavez have set up a $200 billion fund aimed at garnering the support of more South American countries for the cause of "liberation from the American imperialism," according to the report.

Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor refused to comment about the secret report.

The Israeli government report did not say where the uranium that it alleged the two countries were supplying originated from.

Bolivia has uranium deposits. Venezuela is not currently mining its own estimated 50,000 tons of untapped uranium reserves, according to an analysis published in December by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. The Carnegie report said, however, that recent collaboration with Iran in strategic minerals has generated speculation that Venezuela could mine uranium for Iran.

The Israeli government report also charges that the Iran-backed Hezbollah guerrillas in Lebanon have set up cells in Latin America.

It says Venezuela has issued permits that allow Iranian residents to travel freely in South America.

The report concludes, "Since Ahmadinejad's rise to power, Tehran has been promoting an aggressive policy aimed at bolstering its ties with Latin American countries with the declared goal of 'bringing America to its knees.'"

The document says Venezuela and Bolivia are violating the United Nations Security Council's economic sanctions with their aid to Iran.

As allies against the U.S., Ahmadinejad and Chavez have set up a $200 billion fund aimed at garnering the support of more South American countries for the cause of "liberation from the American imperialism," according to the report.

Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor refused to comment about the secret report.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 25 May 09 - 08:23 PM

Obama: World must 'stand up' to North Korea
         
Merrill Hartson, Associated Press Writer – 41 mins ago

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama assailed North Korea Monday for new missile tests, saying the world must "stand up to" Pyongyang and demand that it honor a promise to abandon its nuclear ambitions.

Appearing on the White House steps, Obama said that its latest nuclear underground test and subsequent test firings of short-range ground to air missiles "pose a grave threat to the peace and security of the world and I strongly condemn their reckless action."

It was his second statement within hours of the tests, the latest in a number of nuclear actions that Obama said "endanger the people of Northeast Asia." He called it "a blatant violation of international law" and said that it contradicted North Korea's "own prior commitments." Obama had released a written statement chastising the North Koreans in the early morning hours of Monday.

In his statement in the White House Rose Garden, he noted that the latest tests had drawn scorn around the world. Pyongyang's actions "have flown in the face of U.N. resolutions" and had deepened its isolation, he said, "inviting stronger international pressure."

"North Korea will not find security and respect through threats and illegal weapons," the president said. "We will work with our friends and allies to stand up to this behavior. The United States will never waver from our determination to protect our people and the peace and security of the world."

more

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 25 May 09 - 09:10 PM

Considering Israel's hard-on for making war against Iran, I don't think it would be reasonable for us to take any reports coming from that country seriously. They were giving us "secret" reports on Iraq before we attacked that country, too.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: bobad
Date: 25 May 09 - 09:19 PM

Israel has nothing to gain by making war against Iran but they will take out their nuclear weapons, you can count on that, and the world be better off for it.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 26 May 09 - 12:23 AM

Israel has a policy of not allowing any major powers to emerge in the Middle East other than itself. Israel wants total hegemony in the region. Israel was gunning for Iran long before the acquisition of nuclear weapons was even an issue with Iran.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 May 09 - 01:13 PM

Gee, CarolC,

You state your opinion as if it were fact. I know that you do not intend to do that- since you have no facts to back you up.

IMO, what Israel wants is peace with it's neighbors, and the removal ( by peaceful means if possible, but before Israel itself is destroyed under any circumstances) of those threats which have been made against it.

Just my opinion- as your comments were just your OPINION.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 26 May 09 - 02:03 PM

It's not my opinion. It's a fact. There is more than ample documentation of this, and it is openly acknowledged by many members of the Israeli government.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 May 09 - 02:21 PM

I would concur regarding Israel's ambitions in the Middle East, Carol.

Meanwhile, however, we still have Liechtenstein to worry about. Fear the Sleeping Croissant!

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 May 09 - 02:38 PM

Well, If LH agrees with you, that must be proof of something...


Can we have some agreement here about what a "fact" is????

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 May 09 - 04:10 PM

There are a lot of different types of "facts" out there, BB, and they vary wildly from one civilization and culture to another.

There are some we all can agree on, such as...

1 + 1 = 2
up is the opposite of down
things fall down, not up
water flows downward and takes the path of least resistance
etc...

Then there are some we don't agree on, such as...

The USA is the greatest nation in the world.
China is the greatest nation in the world.
Japan is the greatest nation in the world.
Russian is the greatest nation in the world.
Egypt is the greatest nation in the world.
etc...

Yet many Americans feel that to state "the USA is the greatest nation in the world" is to state a fact! ;-) Well, it's not a fact, it's an opinion.

When making political arguments, people sieze upon any fact(s) that they feel will strengthen their position, and they discount or ignore any fact(s) that they feel will imperil their position.

This has been going on ever since Og said it was a fact that Mog stole his wife and cheated him at "toss the sticks".

We will never succeed in all agreeing on which facts truly matter and which facts don't and which are really the REAL facts and which aren't.

So, get used to it. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 26 May 09 - 04:18 PM

In this case, it's a fact according to stated policy, and it's a fact according to their behavior and the results of their behavior.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 26 May 09 - 04:26 PM

CarolC,

I disagree with your statement of "facts"



Have you the documentation to support
"In this case, it's a fact according to stated policy"?




"and it's a fact according to their behavior and the results of their behavior. "

Implies that it is a fact that Palestinians do not want peace, or a state of Israel. ( from their behavior)

Will you allow that as a FACT, then?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 26 May 09 - 05:38 PM

May 25, 2009 23:51 | Updated May 26, 2009 2:32
Iran watching US reaction to N. Korea
By HILARY LEILA KRIEGER, JERUSALEM POST CORRESPONDENT
WASHINGTON


US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spent Monday engaged in "intensive diplomacy" concerning North Korea's reported nuclear test, according to the State Department.

She had spoken by phone to her Japanese and South Korean counterparts by press time and was due to consult with Chinese and Russian leaders later in the day.

While it wasn't immediately clear what steps the US would be taking in response to the test, US President Barack Obama paused before his Memorial Day visit to Arlington Cemetery Monday morning to denounce the "blatant violation of international law."

He called the test a threat to the populations in the region and a violation of North Korea's own commitments made under multilateral negotiations - known as the six-party talks - over ending its nuclear program.

"The United States and the international community must take action in response," he declared. "North Korea will not find security and respect through threats and illegal weapons."

Obama added, "We will work with our friends and our allies to stand up to this behavior and we will redouble our efforts toward a more robust international nonproliferation regime that all countries have responsibilities to meet."

While the US was calling for international cooperation, analysts in Washington said that the nuclear test - and the American response to it - had global implications.

"Given the cooperation between North Korea and Iran, there is reason to fear that North Korea and Iran may be sharing data on nuclear matters, as they do on ballistic missiles," John Bolton, the former undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, said on Fox News Monday. "This is a threat not just in northeast Asia, but potentially in the Middle East as well."

And Ilan Berman, vice president for policy of the American Foreign Policy Council, said that Teheran will be watching the American response closely, to apply it to its own circumstances.

"Everyone's taking their cues from this," he said. "The Iranians, based on how America responds or doesn't respond, are going to make assumptions about how far they can go in their nuclear program, how far they can go in their missile program without eliciting a serious response from America."

He pointed to a missile test that North Korea held earlier this spring despite opposition from the White House as paving the way for this week's nuclear test announcement.

Despite America's verbal condemnation ahead of the missile test, Berman said, "the response was pretty dramatic in its nonexistence; it was a pretty telling moment."

"The expectation is that the Obama administration's not going to have a very steely approach to this," he added.

If that turns out to be the case, he said, "The Iranians could be justified in concluding that Washington is going to respond the same way to them."

Bolton described the test as "a real moment of truth for the Obama administration."

The US ambassador to the UN under former president George W. Bush recommended that the US add North Korea back to its state-sponsors of terrorism list, as well as impose tough UN sanctions.

Berman suggested that tying up its financial transactions - an effective strategy the Bush administration used before relaxing its approach to North Korea - as well as sanctions could be employed.

"If you choose to do nothing, you still have made a choice, and everyone understands that you have made a choice," Berman said.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 May 09 - 06:49 PM

It's quite silly to imagine that North Korea presents any serious threat to anyone except South Korea. They BOTH present a serious threat to one another...potentially...and they will continue to do so until such time as they agree on peaceful coexistence and an end to hostilities.

The North Koreans are doing what they normally do. They are trying to provoke some international attention which will get them some foreign aid, and they are trying to create a deterrent to any possible outside attack by far greater military power than their own. They are also trying to boost morale at home. It's always considered a big boost to national morale when a small country improves its weapons systems and makes a technical advance in space, nuclear weapons, missiles, or anything else along that line.

The North Korean leadership are simply doing what they think will further secure their position and their security. Period. For the world to panic over that is just silly.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 May 09 - 08:14 PM

"any serious threat to anyone except South Korea."

Are you planning to tell the Japanese this? THEY seem more than a little concerned.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 26 May 09 - 09:23 PM

"In Tokyo, a former defense minister and ruling party lawmaker said that Japan should consider developing the ability to conduct preemptive strikes against North Korea, even though Japan's constitution prohibits it from taking offensive military action.

North Korea is believed to possess more than 200 mid-range Nodong missiles that can strike nearly any part of Japan. The Japanese government, which has invested billions of dollars in a U.S.-made antimissile defense system, is concerned that the North is making progress in designing nuclear warheads that could fit atop its missiles.

"We must look at active missile defense such as attacking an enemy's territory and bases," the former defense minister, Gen Nakatani, said at a meeting of Japan's ruling Liberal Democratic Party.
"

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 26 May 09 - 09:26 PM

Sure, I can get some documentation. Later, when I have more time.

Whether or not the Palestinians want peace is irrelevant. What they want is freedom, and their actions and stated policies are perfectly consistent with that.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 26 May 09 - 09:29 PM

I was reading something about probable reasons for what North Korea has been doing lately. Someone was suggesting that Kim Jong Il is not well, and the government of Korea is staging some shows of macho power because of some internal rifts within the government itself around the question of succession.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 27 May 09 - 01:56 AM

On the subject of those who want peace and those who don't...

http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2009/05/israel-wants-to-keep-the-settlements-pa-says-they-can-stay-as-palestinian-citizens.html

Israel wants to keep the settlements, PA says they can stay as Palestinian citizens

The Obama administration is putting Israeli settlements front and center and Israeli politicians are doing their best to spin the issue. Likud MK Tzipi Hotovely has held her conference opposing the two-state solution where Strategic Affairs Minister Moshe Ya'alon argued against ending the conflict with the Palestinians. Ha'aretz quotes Ya'alon as saying, "We have to disavow the commonly held perception that we should find an imminent solution." Towards the center of Israeli politics, Defense Minister Ehud Barak is seeking to bring a "compromise" on settlements to Obama when he visits Washington next week. According to the Associated Press, Barak will offer to dismantle settlement outposts in exchange for allowing Israel to continue to expand the vast majority of settlements.

Barak's proposal, which Netanyahu supports, is clearly not a compromise at all, it is simply a demand to continue the status quo. Even the AP points out, "The wildcat outposts are a peripheral part of Israel's West Bank settlement enterprise because only a few thousand people live there." As a point of reference there are over 500,000 Israeli settlers in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem. Barak's offer is totally inconsequential towards ending Israeli control over the West Bank, and if anything it should raise questions about his support for these very outposts. Both Ibn Ezra and Max Blumenthal has shown lately that the outposts are spreading with the active support of the Israeli military.

In the AP article, chief Palestinian negotiator Ahmed Qureia makes the common sense point, "what does a peace process mean when settlements are continuing on the Palestinian territories?" He has a more in depth, and interesting, interview with Akiva Eldar in Ha'aretz in preparation for Mahmoud Abbas's visit to Washington later this week. From the interview:

    Do you believe Israel would agree to evacuate Ma'aleh Adumim's 35,000 residents?

    Qureia: "[Former U.S. secretary of state] Condoleezza Rice told me she understood our position about Ariel but that Ma'aleh Adumim was a different matter. I told her, and Livni, that those residents of Ma'aleh Adumim or Ariel who would rather stay in their homes could live under Palestinian rule and law, just like the Israeli Arabs who live among you. They could hold Palestinian and Israeli nationalities. If they want it - welcome. Israeli settlements in the heart of the territories would be a recipe for problems.

This idea, while controversial among Palestinians, is an interesting way of turning Israeli intransigence on its head. If Israelis are not willing to leave the settlements then they are welcome to stay in Palestine, but only if they are willing to live in equality with Palestinians, and not from a position of dominance. So far there have not been any signs that Israel would be willing to do this.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,Greycap
Date: 27 May 09 - 05:54 AM

Yes, Folks,
It's Korea!!! Nuke a Commie for Christ.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Lox
Date: 27 May 09 - 09:05 AM

LH,

North Koreas Nuclear capability is a serious problem.

Kim Jong Il is a spoiled kid with a self entitlement complex.

He's like a little evil boy with a gun trying to exert power over his classmates and looking for an excuse to impose that power.

He is spoiling for a fight with South Korea and it wouldn't surprise me if he nuked Seoul.

I hope that the security council can act quickly to prevent such an utter monstrosity.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 May 09 - 02:10 PM

N. Korea threatens to attack US, S. Korea warships
         

By HYUNG-JIN KIM, Associated Press Writer Hyung-jin Kim, Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 34 mins ago

SEOUL, South Korea – North Korea threatened military action Wednesday against U.S. and South Korean warships plying the waters near the Koreas' disputed maritime border, raising the specter of a naval clash just days after the regime's underground nuclear test.

Pyongyang, reacting angrily to Seoul's decision to join an international program to intercept ships suspected of aiding nuclear proliferation, called the move tantamount to a declaration of war.

"Now that the South Korean puppets were so ridiculous as to join in the said racket and dare declare a war against compatriots," North Korea is "compelled to take a decisive measure," the Committee for the Peaceful Reunification of Korea said in a statement carried by state media.

The North Korean army called it a violation of the armistice the two Koreas signed in 1953 to end their three-year war, and said it would no longer honor the treaty.

South Korea's military said Wednesday it was prepared to "respond sternly" to any North Korean provocation.

North Korea's latest belligerence comes as the U.N. Security Council debates how to punish the regime for testing a nuclear bomb Monday in what President Barack Obama called a "blatant violation" of international law.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 27 May 09 - 05:40 PM

Clinton Warns North Korea for 'Belligerent' Behavior in Region

By Heejin Koo and Indira A.R. Lakshmanan

May 27 (Bloomberg) -- Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said North Korea must face consequences for its "belligerent and provocative behavior" after Kim Jong Il's regime threatened military action against South Korea.
Clinton spoke in Washington after North Korea's official news agency said Kim's government would no longer abide by the 1953 armistice that ended the Korean War and may respond militarily to South Korea's participation in a U.S.-led program that would block ships suspected of carrying nuclear weapons or material for export.
The U.S. takes "very seriously" its commitments to defend South Korea and Japan, its principal allies in the region, Clinton said. She called on North Korea to return to the so- called six party talks aimed at dismantling its nuclear arms program.
North Korea has continued to ratchet up tension since it tested a nuclear weapon on May 25, drawing international condemnation and the prospect of increased sanctions against the communist nation.
"The Korean People's Army will not be bound to the Armistice Agreement any longer," the official Korean Central News Agency said in a statement today. Any attempt to inspect North Korean vessels will be countered with "prompt and strong military strikes."
South Korea dispatched a warship to its maritime border and is prepared to deploy aircraft, Yonhap News reported, citing military officials it didn't identify. South Korea's military said it will "deal sternly with any provocation" from the North.

'Calm' Response
Still, South Korean President Lee Myung Bak ordered his government to take "calm" measures in the face of the threats, his office said in a statement today. Japan's Chief Cabinet Secretary, Takeo Kawamura, echoed those remarks and called on North Korea to "refrain from taking actions that would elevate tensions in Asia."
President Barack Obama's spokesman, Robert Gibbs, said North Korea's rhetoric will only bring the nation further isolation. "Threats won't get North Korea the attention it craves," he said.
North Korea routinely issues threats directed at the U.S., South Korea and Japan, warning of military retaliation if they continue to take actions that the country's leadership characterizes as threats to its security.

Aggressive Shift
"This rapid-fire provocation indicates a more aggressive shift in the Kim Jong Il regime," said Ryoo Kihl Jae, a professor at the University of North Korean Studies in Seoul. "Kim is obviously using a strategy of maximum force."
North Korea raised the specter of a maritime confrontation. The dispatch by the Korean Central News Agency said North Korea can't guarantee the safety of ships passing through its western waters. The statement specified five islands controlled by the South that were the site of naval skirmishes in 1999 and 2002.
"What they are saying is that they will take military action if there is any action taken on behalf of the program such as boarding their ships, stopping and searching and so on," said Han Sung Joo, a former South Korean foreign minister.
South Korea yesterday agreed to join the Proliferation Security Initiative, or PSI, set up to locate and seize shipments of equipment and materials used to make weapons of mass destruction.
Reaction to Test
President Lee had resisted joining the PSI until the nuclear test, even after North Korea fired a ballistic missile on April 5. His predecessor, Roh Moo Hyun, had said that joining the initiative would be too provocative.
North Korea has also fired five short-range missiles in two days in a further display of military defiance. The United Nations Security Council agreed in an emergency session on May 25 to condemn the nuclear test and missile launches.
Under the July 27, 1953, armistice that ended the Korean War, both sides agreed to "a complete cessation of all hostilities" and pledged to accept the demarcation line that has become the world's most-heavily mined demilitarized zone.
The U.S. has about 28,500 troops stationed in South Korea, according to the United States Forces Korea Web site.
In addition to the weapons tests, North Korea may be preparing to reprocess spent fuel rods at its Yongbyon nuclear reactor, the Chosun Ilbo newspaper reported earlier today, citing an unidentified South Korean official. Steam has been rising from the facilities, the newspaper said.

Succession
A succession crisis and internal jockeying and unease over who will succeed Kim may be fueling the North's actions.
Kim likely suffered a stroke last August, according to U.S. intelligence officials, and disappeared from public view before presiding over a parliamentary session in April, when he looked gaunt and aged. Research groups including the U.S. Army War College's Strategic Studies Institute say Kim is 68, while the regime says he is a year younger.
North Korea's threat of a military response may flow less from U.S. and South Korean actions than from domestic turmoil over a possible leadership change, said analysts including Wendy Sherman, former coordinator for North Korea policy under President Bill Clinton.
The leaders "right now care more about internal matters than international acceptance," Sherman said. "It's not that they're not trying to get our attention. They are trying to show each other" how loyal they are to Kim.

---

Message edited to shorten it, but it's still over the one-screen limit. Watch it, Bruce.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 27 May 09 - 06:41 PM

Russia fears Korea conflict could go nuclear - Ifax

Wed May 27, 2009 4:48pm IST By Oleg Shchedrov

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia is taking security measures as a precaution against the possibility tension over North Korea could escalate into nuclear war, news agencies quoted officials as saying on Wednesday.

Interfax quoted an unnamed security source as saying a stand-off triggered by Pyongyang's nuclear test on Monday could affect the security of Russia's far eastern regions, which border North Korea.

"The need has emerged for an appropriate package of precautionary measures," the source said.

"We are not talking about stepping up military efforts but rather about measures in case a military conflict, perhaps with the use of nuclear weapons, flares up on the Korean Peninsula," he added. The official did not elaborate further.

North Korea has responded to international condemnation of its nuclear test and a threat of new U.N. sanctions by saying it is no longer bound by an armistice signed with South Korea at the end of the 1950-53 Korean War.

Itar-Tass news agency quoted a Russian Foreign Ministry official as saying the "war of nerves" over North Korea should not be allowed to grow into a military conflict, a reference to Pyongyang's decision to drop out of the armistice deal.



more

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 28 May 09 - 02:02 PM

Iran says it boosts uranium enrichment capability
         

AP Thu May 28, 9:25 am ET

TEHRAN, Iran – President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Iran has boosted its capacity to enrich uranium, another sign of anti-Western defiance by the leader seeking re-election in a vote next month.

Ahmadinejad said last month that Iran had 7,000 centrifuges at its uranium enrichment facility in Natanz in central Iran. The figure marked a significant boost from the 6,000 centrifuges announced in February. In his latest comments, reported by the state-run Islamic Republic News Agency on Thursday, he did not give a specific new figure.

"Now we have more than 7,000 centrifuges and the West dare not threaten us," IRNA quoted Ahmadinejad as saying on a small radio station late Wednesday.

Ahmadinejad has made Iran's expanding nuclear program one of the centerpieces of his campaign for the June 12 elections and has struck an increasingly harsh tone against the United States and other countries calling for Iran to halt it uranium enrichment.

Iran's leaders say they will never give up nuclear technology and insist they seek only energy-producing reactors. The United States, Israel and other nations worry that Iran's enrichment facilities could eventually produce material for nuclear warheads.

There is broad consensus among Iranian voters on the nation's rights for a nuclear program. But Ahmadinejad's three challengers — a fellow hard-liner and two moderates — have questioned his uncompromising stances against the West and their offers of economic incentives in exchange for suspending uranium enrichment.

The centrifuges spin at supersonic speeds to remove impurities from uranium gas, which then goes through other steps to become nuclear fuel or, at higher enrichment levels, nuclear weapons material.

Earlier this year, Iran said it was using an upgraded centrifuge that produces enriched uranium at about double the rate of its original systems.

Currently, Iran is only capable of slowly producing enriched uranium for reactors. But Iranian officials have said their long-term goal is for more than 50,000 centrifuges, which would give it the ability to produce high-grade nuclear material in a start-to-finish cycle of just weeks.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 28 May 09 - 03:02 PM

US, SKorea militaries gird for NKorean provocation
         

Jae-soon Chang, Associated Press Writer – 8 mins ago

SEOUL, South Korea – The U.S. and South Korea put their military forces on high alert Thursday after North Korea renounced the truce keeping the peace between the two Koreas since 1953.

The North also accused the U.S. of preparing to attack the isolated communist country in the wake of its second nuclear bomb test, and warned it would retaliate to any hostility with "merciless" and dangerous ferocity.

Seoul moved a 3,500-ton destroyer into waters near the Koreas' disputed western maritime border while smaller, high-speed vessels were keeping guard at the front line, South Korean news reports said. The defense ministry said the U.S. and South Korean militaries would increase surveillance activities.

Pyongyang, meanwhile, positioned artillery guns along the west coast on its side of the border, the Yonhap news agency said. The Joint Chiefs of Staffs in Seoul refused to confirm the reports.

The show of force along the heavily fortified border dividing the two Koreas comes three days after North Korea conducted an underground nuclear test and fired a series of short-range missiles.

The test drew immediate condemnation from world leaders and the U.N. Security Council, where ambassadors were discussing a new resolution to punish Pyongyang. President Barack Obama called it a "blatant violation" of international law.

In response, South Korea said it would join more than 90 nations that have agreed to stop and inspect vessels suspected of transporting weapons of mass destruction.

North Korea called South Korea's participation in the U.S.-led Proliferation Security Initiative a prelude to a naval blockade and a violation of the truce signed to end the three-year war that broke out in Korea in 1950.

On Wednesday Pyongyang renounced the 1953 armistice and the following day warned U.S. forces against advancing into its territory.

"The northward invasion scheme by the U.S. and the South Korean puppet regime has exceeded the alarming level," the North's main Rodong Sinmun newspaper said in a commentary carried by the official Korean Central News Agency. "A minor accidental skirmish can lead to a nuclear war."

The U.S., which has 28,500 troops in South Korea and another 50,000 in Japan, has denied it is planning military action. But U.S. and South Korean troops were placed on their highest alert level for more than two years.

The South Korea-U.S. combined forces command rates its surveillance alert on a scale to 5, with 1 being the highest level. On Thursday, the level was raised from 3 to 2, the second-highest level, South Korean Defense Ministry spokesman Won Tae-jae said. He said the last time the alert level was that high was in 2006, when the North conducted its first nuclear test.

Won said both militaries were raising their surveillance activities, although he would not explain what that meant. South Korean media reported that the higher alert would involve increased monitoring of North Korea using satellites and navy ships.

The U.N. Command on Korea said it would continue to observe the armistice, saying it "remains in force and is binding on all signatories, including North Korea."

North Korea has repudiated the armistice several times before, most recently in 2003 and 2006.

South Korean Foreign Ministry spokesman Moon Tae-young accused the North of "seriously distorting" the decision to join in the initiative.

Seoul has said its military would "respond sternly" to any North Korean provocation, and that it would be able to contain the North with the help of U.S. troops.

The South Korean military has dispatched "personnel and equipment deployment" along its land and sea borders, a Joint Chiefs of Staff officer said. He spoke on condition of anonymity citing department policy.

He said there has been no particular movement of North Korean troops in border areas.

The two Koreas technically remain at war because they signed a truce, not a peace treaty, in 1953. However, North disputes the U.N.-drawn maritime border off their west coast, and used that dispute to provoke deadly naval skirmishes in 1999 and 2002.

South Korea's mass-circulation JoongAng Ilbo newspaper said more anti-air missiles and artillery were dispatched to military bases on islands near the disputed western sea border with North Korea.

Yonhap said the destroyer has artillery guns, anti-ship guided missiles, ship-to-air missiles and torpedoes. Air force fighters are were on standby, the report said.

North Korea's West Sea fleet has 13 submarines and more than 360 vessels, Yonhap said.

The recent flurry of belligerence could reflect an effort by 67-year-old leader Kim Jong Il to boost his standing among his impoverished people.

It was also seen as a test of Obama's new administration, and came as two Americans, journalists Euna Lee and Laura Ling, remained in custody in Pyongyang accused of illegal entry and "hostile acts." They face trial in Pyongyang next week.

Japanese Prime Minister Taro Aso said any new Security Council resolution must be stronger than the one issued after the North's first atomic test in October 2006, and contain sanctions.

A Russian Foreign Ministry official said Moscow did not want to see Pyongyang further isolated. Andrei Nesterenko said Russia opposed sanctions but did not object to a U.N. resolution.

Hong Hyun-ik, a senior analyst at the Sejong Institute security think tank, said sanctions would not be effective unless China — North Korea's traditional ally — implemented them.

"Kim Jong Il must be scoffing" at the talk of sanctions, he said. "He knows the world will forget about any sanctions in the end."

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 28 May 09 - 03:47 PM

Analysis: Has North Korea reached a 'tipping point'?

Story Highlights
Analysis: President Obama can't let North Korea's nuclear antics go unanswered

Role of China and Russia likely to be crucial in dealing with North Korea

It may be time for a fundamental overhaul of U.S. policy toward North Korea

Analysis: U.S. and allies must develop plan to prevent arms race, instability in region

updated 3:29 a.m. EDT, Thu May 28, 2009

By Elise Labott
CNN State Department Producer
   
Editor's note: Since becoming State Department producer in 2000, Elise Labott has covered four secretaries of state and reported from more than 50 countries. Before joining CNN, she covered the United Nations.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- When North Korea conducted a nuclear test in 2006, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice promised tough consequences for North Korea's actions but said the door was still open for negotiations.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said pretty much the same thing last month when North Korea lobbed a long-range rocket, prompting fears that it could hit Japan or even Hawaii.

The broken record was replayed this week when President Obama called for "stronger international pressure" after North Korea turned pyrotechnics into an extreme sport, with an apparent nuclear test followed by a series of missile launches.

Fifteen years after the Clinton administration signed the Agreed Framework, essentially bribing North Korea to give up its weapons program with a nuclear power plant, the U.S. has been riding a merry-go-round of deal-making, provocation and punishment with the North.

The Bush administration also tried unsuccessfully to get North Korea to abandon its nuclear ambitions -- first by trying to squeeze the regime and then by reaching a deal with Pyongyang to dismantle its main nuclear reactor.

Economic sanctions, U.N. Security Council resolutions and even the Obama administration's policy of engagement with rogue states all have failed so far. And military action to take out North Korea's nuclear arsenal is unthinkable, with Pyongyang's enormous conventional army sure to retaliate against neighbors South Korea and Japan.

With North Korea posing an early test to his administration, Obama can't let North Korea's nuclear antics go unanswered. But as it did in April after the missile launch, the U.S. wants to handle this in a way that will preserve the ability to restart the so-called six-party talks. Obama's aides are debating the pros and cons of what limited options the administration has.

For now, eyes are on the Security Council, where the U.S. and its allies are discussing elements of a resolution. Some of the ideas being proposed are tightening existing sanctions, intercepting nuclear cargo and cutting off North Korea's access to cash, possibly with a ban on the lucrative sale of conventional weapons it uses to fund its nuclear program.

The role of China and Russia, typically reluctant to impose sanctions against North Korea, will be crucial. Last month the U.S. could barely get Beijing and Moscow to sign onto to a watered-down statement criticizing North Korea. But administration officials involved in North Korea policy say the one silver lining in the latest antics is that they were so outrageous they crossed a line, which could galvanize Russia and China to act.

Officials acknowledge that with North Korea already sanctioned to the hilt, such measures may do little more than get the regime's attention. But maybe that is the point. North Korea is known for its attention-grabbing, and some officials predict (read: wish) that a strong international reaction could be what Pyongyang needs to nudge it back to the table.

As one senior official put it, "Once we both know we have each other's attention, we can have a drink and a smoke and get back to business."

But even as the administration looks down the road at another round of six-party talks, officials are questioning the long-term viability of the exercise. Gary Samore, the president's top adviser for nonproliferation, and Hillary Clinton have both said that North Korea does not appear to want the talks to move forward.

That's the thing about talks -- they generally aren't productive when only one side is talking.

Seriously complicating matters is the health of ailing North Korean leader Kim Jong Il and the lack of clear succession in place. Officials say that the country's internal dynamics are a large, if not the critical, component driving North Korea's actions.

It's particularly concerning because the future of the regime is one where nobody, including the Chinese, can do anything to alter the equation. In that case even the most strenuous international diplomacy may influence North Korean behavior on the margins but will have little effect on how this situation ultimately plays out.

With decades of diplomacy unable to produce a denuclearized Korean Peninsula, it begs the question of whether it is time for a fundamental overhaul of U.S. policy toward North Korea. There are serious conversations in Washington and among capitals about whether North Korea has reached a "tipping point," offering the world final proof it is intent on developing what it calls a "nuclear deterrent."

A nuclear weapon with the missile systems to deliver it would not only pose an existential threat to South Korea and Japan, officials fear it would spark an arms race in East Asia -- turning this region, which has been relatively stable for 40 years, into a much different place.

The U.S. and its allies must huddle quickly and develop a plan to prevent this alternate -- and scary -- reality.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Rapparee
Date: 28 May 09 - 04:55 PM

In 1967 Kim Il Song began what (I believe) was called "Juche" -- taking the South by force preceded by revolt against the ROK government. From then until 1971 the North launched many attacks against the ROK, including the Blue House Raid, the Pueblo, and the shoot-down of an EC121 "spy plane". The attacks lessened after that but still continued.

During this time the US and South Korea were involved in Vietnam. DPRK is again pushing when the US is involved in combat elsewhere (Afghanistan, Iraq). Militarily, DPRK and ROK are pretty well matched militarily and many believe that ROK has or could very quickly develop nuclear weapons (the US removed all of theirs in 1991 but can fly them from Guam or Okinawa within a couple or three hours).

Park Chung He, the President of ROK in the 1960s, was quite ready to head North, especially after the Blue House Raid.

If provoked ROK will fight back and the US will assist due to treaties signed many years ago (and the troops would shoot in self defense in any case).

Except for Kim Jong Il being in very bad health and an internal power struggle going on inside DPRK I would expect the same-o, same-o as in the past.

Because of the internal struggles I would not be surprised by a war.

I only wonder what will happen when the NK troops get a look at the life style and economic prosperity in the South. Will they realize the lies they've been fed?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 28 May 09 - 05:43 PM

I was just reading some of the history of Korea. The Korean peninsula has been subject to many centuries of colonialist enterprises by other countries like Russia and Japan (just two examples), and after WWII, when the country was partitioned into two countries, it was still under foreign occupation (the US and Russia). Korea should have been handed their independence at that time, but the US and Russia didn't want to allow that because of their cold war machinations.

I can see now how it has been possible for the government of North Korea to be able to brainwash their people to accept Juche ideology. They see it as being a way to hold on to their sovereignty and their culture in the face of imperialist encroachments by Western powers into all non-Western countries. They see themselves as being some of the last holdouts against Western imperialist rule. Personally, I think they have a point, although I can't see how the Korean government could possibly expect that it can continue down the road it is on in the long run.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Rapparee
Date: 28 May 09 - 06:23 PM

Carol, I have recently had the pleasure (???) of reading over 1,700 pages of declassified documents relating to Korea from 1966 to 1970. I have also been finding more and more and more documents relating to the country from 1945 (when the Japanese occupied it) to the present. More, I have been reading more lightly in the history of Korea pre-WW2.

And I've been there.

They are are proud people, and have every reason to be. They have an unfortunate location, between China, Russian/Manchuria, and Japan.

Before you call it "US Imperialism", please take a peek at, for example, Kim Il Sung's life and lies. Korea, when I was there, was just starting to replant the trees cut down by the Japanese for their war efforts. Do not forget the Korean women taken by the Japanese as sex slaves during WW2, or this report from the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress. Find out why there a tunnel along the Imjin River is called the "Chinese Tunnel."

I respect and like the Korean people. I would not like to see them suffer yet again.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 28 May 09 - 06:37 PM

The North Koreans experienced Western imperialism under the Soviets. I don't imagine they expect it would be any better if Western imperialism came from other sources. Their experience is what informs their attitudes. If someone is suggesting that I am making excuses for the government of North Korea, I think they should go back and read my post again. As I said, I can understand why it might have been easy for the government to brainwash the people of North Korea. I didn't say I think brainwashing is a good thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,Rapaire
Date: 28 May 09 - 08:51 PM

My point is that the Koreans, North and South, experienced imperialism under the Russians, the Chinese, and the Japanese. During the Korean War (1950-53) the Chinese and the Russians were the North Koreans best friends, supplying them not only with aircraft (for instance) but also pilots. Russia sent T-34 tanks, MIGs, AK-47s, and PPSh submachine guns (among many other things); China sent troops, many troops.

What the South Koreans have experienced with (not "under" -- the Status of Forces Agreement is quite strict) the US is nothing compared to what went on under the others.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 28 May 09 - 09:04 PM

I realize that, but the propaganda they are using now is in reference to Western imperialism. The idea being that the Japanese and Mongols are no longer trying to impose any imperialist agendas in North Korea, but from their perspective, Western governments, the US in particular, are trying to do so.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Rapparee
Date: 28 May 09 - 10:29 PM

I really don't think that the perspective of the North Korean government (such as is broadcast to the world) is very strongly grounded in reality.

For one thing, they've been saying the same thing since 1953. For another, it was NORTH Korea that invaded the South in 1950 (and an argument can be made that it was this invasion that ultimately made South Korea one of Asia's economic powerhouses), which resulted in UN action (and UN troops besides those of the US are in ROK today). The number of US military has decreased since 1969 from 56,000+ to roughly half that number today, while the ROK military has remained roughly stable (including 3.5 million in their "Homeland Defense Reserves").

I can't see how this is "Western imperialism."

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 28 May 09 - 10:41 PM

Nevertheless, that is what they have persuaded their people they are standing up against. And their people appear to be buying it, which I guess doesn't surprise me considering their history of experiencing imperialism at the hands of all kinds of people over the centuries. One boogeyman is just as good as another when a boogeyman is needed (as we know quite well from our own history).

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 01 Jun 09 - 07:49 PM

A New Red Line For Iran

By Graham Allison
Monday, June 1, 2009

The Iranian nuclear challenge was transformed on President George W. Bush's watch. Events in Iran have advanced faster than the policy community's thinking about the problem. The brute fact is that Iran has crossed a threshold that is painful to acknowledge but impossible to ignore: It has lost its nuclear virginity.

Over the past eight years, the United States has insisted that Iran would never be allowed to develop the capability to enrich uranium, as that could be used to build a nuclear bomb. Three unanimous U.N. Security Council resolutions demanded that Iran "suspend all enrichment-related activities." That was a worthy aim. Technically, mastery of enrichment is the brightest red line short of nuclear weapons. Israelis have called it the "point of no return."

Bush chose the right operational objective when he declared, "We cannot allow the Iranians to have the capacity to enrich." Sadly, the strategy he pursued to prevent Iran from crossing that red line failed. One can debate whether a different strategy would have produced a different outcome. At this point, however, we must recognize the irreversible bottom line: Iran has demonstrably mastered the capability to manufacture and operate centrifuges to enrich uranium. The February report of the International Atomic Energy Agency documents the details: Iran is operating 4,000 centrifuges and has already produced more than a ton of low-enriched uranium -- an amount sufficient, after further enrichment, to make its first nuclear bomb.

The policy consequences of Iran having gotten this far down the road to a nuclear bomb are profound. These new facts require a fundamental reassessment not only of how we engage Iran but also of what we can realistically hope to achieve.

First, the long-held American objective to prevent Iran from acquiring the technical know-how to enrich uranium has been overtaken by events. While it was an appropriate goal at the time, Iran has acquired this capability. Its knowledge of how to enrich uranium cannot be erased. There is no realistic future in which Iran will not be "nuclear enrichment capable," that is, have the know-how to replicate its current enrichment facility at Natanz -- either overtly or covertly.

Second, the predominant focus of U.S. and international policy on Iran's observable nuclear enrichment facility at Natanz is largely misplaced. Preoccupation with the "known" to the neglect of the "known unknown" is common in policymaking. But at this point, it has become a caricature of the story of the drunk looking for his car keys under the lamppost, even though he knows he dropped them a hundred yards away, because that is where the light is. If Iran detonates a nuclear bomb in the next four years, the likelihood that the highly enriched uranium for that bomb will have been produced at Natanz is less than 10 percent. Thus, erasing Natanz today, either by Israel's threatened military attack or through negotiations, addresses the smaller part of the threat.

Further, and third, the source of the highly enriched uranium for Iran's bomb -- if Iran makes and tests a bomb during Obama's first term -- will be a covert enrichment plant that we have not discovered. By definition, we don't know the location or status of secret, undiscovered facilities. But as an American intelligence officer quipped, if Iran's nuclear project manager has put all his eggs in the one basket that is under the spotlight of international inspection, he should be fired.

The bottom line for American policy is that the menu of feasible options has shrunk. Every option available at this point requires living with an Iran that knows how to enrich uranium. Continued denial of this truth is self-delusion.

The central policy question becomes: What combination of arrangements, inside and outside Iran, has the best chance of persuading it to stop short of a nuclear bomb? More important than how many centrifuges Iran continues operating at Natanz is how transparent it will be about all of its nuclear activities, including the manufacture of centrifuges. Maximizing the likelihood that covert enrichment will be discovered is the best way to minimize the likelihood that it will be pursued. The best hope for defining a meaningful red line is to enshrine the Iranian supreme leader's affirmations that Iran will never acquire nuclear weapons in a solemn international agreement that commits Russia and China to join the United States in specific, devastating penalties for violation of that pledge.

The Obama administration cannot restore Iran's nuclear innocence. Its challenge is to prevent the birth of the next nuclear-weapons state.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Jun 09 - 08:21 PM

Best way to do that would be for Israel (and India and Pakistan) to join the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 01 Jun 09 - 10:25 PM

So, since you have stated that Iran need not comply with the NPT that it signed, when it feels it needs to take other means to defend itself, I must assume you will allow Israel to do the same, and NOT hold it to any of the limitations of the NPT, either.


Especially since
1. Israel did not sign the NPT, nor get the assistance provided by it.
2. Israel had it's nuclear program prior to the NPT- IF it were to sign, it would have to be at the same level as the US, France, China, etc, NOT as a non-nuclear state such as Iran.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 02 Jun 09 - 12:42 AM

Please show me where I have said that Iran need not comply with the NPT.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 02 Jun 09 - 03:20 AM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090602/ts_nm/us_korea_north_75

SEOUL (Reuters) � North Korean leader Kim Jong-il has signaled the anointment of his youngest son as heir to the ruling family dynasty as the two Koreas bolstered their militaries along a disputed sea border on Tuesday.

North Korea has turned increasing belligerent since its internationally condemned nuclear test last week, actions analysts believe Kim Jong-il is using to give him greater leverage over power elites at home to nominate his own successor.

It has raised alarm in the region over how far iron ruler Kim, 67 and thought to have suffered a stroke last year, may be prepared to take his latest military grandstanding.

North Korea has asked the country's main bodies and its overseas missions to pledge loyalty to Kim's youngest son Kim Jong-un, various South Korean media outlets quoted informed sources as saying.

"I was notified by the South Korean government of such moves and the loyalty pledges," Park Jie-won, a member of the opposition Democratic Party, said in a statement.

He declined to name his source but the South's Yonhap news agency said Park was among a group of lawmakers briefed on Monday night by the country's spy agency about the succession plans.

Kim Jong-un, born either in 1983 or early 1984, was educated in Switzerland and intelligence sources have said he appears to be the most capable of Kim's three known sons.

Even by North Korea's opaque standards, very little is known about the son, whose youth is a potential problem in a society that adheres closely to the importance of seniority.

"There is a significant link between North Korea's recent military provocations and succession issues," said Lee Dong-bok, an expert on the North's negotiating tactics.

STOCKPILED AMMUNITION

South Korea's Chosun Ilbo quoted a military source as saying the North had stepped up its military training, stockpiled ammunition and imposed a no-sail order off its west coast waters to prepare for a possible fight with the South.

In Seoul, the navy said it was deploying a guided-missile naval vessel to the same area in the Yellow Sea, close to the disputed border that has seen two deadly clashes between the rival states in the past 10 years.

The navy rarely announces such moves and it underscores the hardline being taken toward its communist neighbor by conservative South Korean President Lee Myung-bak who earlier in the day won support at a meeting he hosted of southeast Asian leaders who jointly condemned last weeks' nuclear test.

Many analysts say the North may opt for a skirmish on the sea border as the next step as it ratchets up tension but few believe it would dare put its million-strong but poorly equipped army into direct battle with the U.S.-backed South Korean military.

GUARDED SECRETS

The succession has been one of the most closely guarded secrets in the highly secretive North.

The South's Yonhap news agency quoted an informed source as saying the request for an oath of loyalty by North Korean officials to the youngest son came shortly after the nuclear test on May 25, which was hailed by the North's propaganda as a crowning achievement in Kim Jong-il's "military first" rule.

Kim Jong-il, dubbed the "Dear Leader" by his state's propaganda apparatus, was groomed for decades to take over from his father and state founder "Great Leader" Kim Il-sung. The third generation of Kims is unknown to most North Koreans.

But the South Korean daily Dong-a Ilbo reported that a song had been written for the third son, calling him "The Young Leader," another sign of his rise.

In April, Kim Jong-il put to rest any doubt about whom he sees as his second in command when he elevated his brother-in-law Jang Song-taek to a powerful military post, analysts said.

Analysts said they see the energetic and urbane Jang, 63, as the real power broker after Kim who will groom the successor. Jang, who once fell out of Kim's favor, has in recent year's been Kim's right hand man, they said.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 02 Jun 09 - 08:01 PM

Carolc,
Perhaps I misunderstood. I recall that you had stated the UN was wrong to demand that Iran comply with the terms of the NPT, since they were only building a peaceful nuclear program in self-defense against Israel. Did that not imply they need not comply if they did not feel like it?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 02 Jun 09 - 10:42 PM

Please show me where I said that.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 05 Jun 09 - 03:36 AM

I'm posting this in two parts, because it's really important.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/KF04Ak01.html

Iran wages lonely war on terror
By M K Bhadrakumar

The timing of the attack on the Ali ibn Abi Talib mosque in the eastern Iranian city of Zahedan in the Sistan-Balochistan province bordering Pakistan was by no means casual. Zahedan is a Sunni city. And Shi'ites were mourning the anniversary of Hazrat Zahra, granddaughter of Prophet Mohammad. Over 25 worshippers were killed in last Thursday's attack on the Shi'ite mosque, and 125 injured.

But there are three other reasons why a high-profile, cross-border terrorist attack on Iran from Pakistan took place. One, Iran-Pakistan relations are passing through a period of cordiality and warmth and a cross-border strike was just the right thing to do to


dissipate the newfound bonhomie. Two, US President Barack Obama's much-awaited address to the Muslim world on June 4 raises expectations in the region that a momentous period is at hand in which Iran could be the focal point.

Three, the most crucial presidential election, arguably, in Iran's post-revolution 30-year history will be held on June 12, and marring it will be sweet revenge against the government headed by the "Holocaust-denying", "Israel-hating", "America-bashing" Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad.

Plot to disrupt Sunni-Shi'ite amity
Tehran would have a watch list of "naughty powers" with stakes in Middle Eastern geopolitics. Yet, as indignation boiled over regarding the Zahedan attack, it took exceptional care while articulating its feelings. We have not heard an explicit word so far about an American or British intelligence hand behind the Zahedan attack.

Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei referred to "certain expansionist superpowers and their spying organizations" and warned the people against "opponents of the country's independence and progress" and against "certain people trying to harm national unity". Again, in a demarche with the Pakistani ambassador in Tehran, the Iranian Foreign Ministry vaguely mentioned that "certain people" oppose any expansion of the Iran-Pakistan relationship and "whenever they observe any improvement of ties, they try to tarnish it". It almost appears the Obama-driven detente is gaining traction.

The Iranian leaders underscored that the Zahedan attack was aimed at agitating "Islamic solidarity". Ahmadinejad said: "Sunni and Shi'ite brothers will undoubtedly recognize and neutralize conspiracies through their vigilance." Indeed, the attack took place against the backdrop of a public spat between Iran and Saudi Arabia in the recent period. Tehran has objected to the anti-Shi'ite stances of the Saudi-based Wahhabist clergy.

On Monday, Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki revealed that Tehran recently told Riyadh that "Saudi alims [scholars] are not allowed to impose their own beliefs and religious viewpoints over others and that Muslims must be free to act in accordance with the rules of their own Islamic schools of thought, which of course is not equal with the breach of Saudi laws."

Mottaki said Tehran was in possession of evidence pointing at "foreign elements" in Afghanistan supporting the Jundallah. But the reference could as well have been to Wahhabist elements like al-Qaeda, whom Iran in the past blamed for promoting Jundallah. More so, as he also spoke positively in the same media interaction about the prospects of "practical and fruitful talks" between the US and Iran once the Iranian elections of June 12 are over.

The official news agency IRNA even featured amid all this a commentary on Saturday saluting Obama. It quoted an Iranian expert that "the US opposes Israeli adventurism against Iran"; that Israel has become presently the "most serious challenge" to the Obama administration; that "extremist and violent elements" in Israel regarded Obama as a "big challenge to Tel Aviv"; that "Israel preferred US policies to stay unchanged and wanted America, like in the [George W] Bush era, to follow a policy of animosity towards Iran and that is why it is trying to fan the flame of dispute between Iran and the US". The commentary added that "Israel would never be capable of any military action against Iran unless it manages to get the green light for it from Washington ... [and] Israel could not get the green light from the US for adventurism against Iran."

Long-time observers of Iran would rub their eyes in disbelief. Doubly so, as US State Department officials leaked to the American media over the weekend its advisory that Iranian diplomats will be included in the guest lists for the July 4 Independence Day receptions in the American chancelleries worldwide - an extravagant gesture of courtesy by a superpower to a country it doesn't recognize.

Meanwhile, Tehran is probing deeper and deeper into the Zahedan attack. Tehran cannot raise an international scandal when the June 12 election is delicately poised. There is a genuine four-cornered contest, which might push the election to a "run-off" on June 19. An incumbent Iranian president has probably never before faced such a real challenge. Secondly, Tehran is seized of the geopolitical reality that the US-Israeli honeymoon that seemed evergreen may not be so, after all. Tehran knows diplomatic opportunities lie ahead and rhetorical outbursts against Washington will only play into Israeli hands.

Thus, there is growing frustration that Pakistan could do more to curb cross-border terrorism. An Iran-Pakistan counter-terrorism mechanism is in place with regular exchange of intelligence and even coordinated security operations. The chief of the Iranian armed forces, General Hassan Firouzabadi, claimed on Saturday that Tehran had passed on to Islamabad pin-point information about Jundallah's base camps inside Pakistan.

But it seems Islamabad doesn't follow up. According to Fars news agency, "Tehran has repeatedly warned Islamabad that if it cannot handle the situation at and inside its borders with the Islamic Republic, Iran has the required power and military capabilities to trace and hunt down such terrorist groups inside Pakistan." The Iranian Foreign Ministry maintains that the Zahedan attacks could have been averted if only Islamabad had acted promptly on the intelligence passed on by Tehran about such a Jundallah operation.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 05 Jun 09 - 03:37 AM

Grey area in AfPak strategy

Evidently, Jundallah is a thorn in the flesh and Tehran badly needs to get rid of it, but cannot quite have its way. There have been persistent reports that US Special Forces operating in Pakistan and Afghanistan have provided arms and training to Jundallah.

Majlis (parliament) speaker Ali Larijani told agitated Iranian parliamentarians on Sunday that the US had "long had contacts" with Jundallah. "Due to the obstacles they face in the region, Americans seek to find a way forward for attaining their objectives at all costs, but these terrorist acts will eventually cost them dearly," he warned.

The fact remains that although Washington has publicly distanced itself from the Zahedan attack, it still refuses to include Jundallah in its list of terrorist organizations, plainly ignoring Tehran's claims that Jundallah is associated with al-Qaeda. To be sure, there is a grey area in the US's AfPak strategy, which creates misgivings in regional capitals. The Obama administration must come clean if an Afghan settlement is to be durable.

The Russian official state television channel Rossiya recently featured a program on the Pakistani military operations in the Swat region. The commentator pointed out that there are "many contradictions" in the US role in Pakistan. "There are many indications that by pushing Pakistan towards the chaos of civil war, Washington is trying to destabilize the general political situation in the region for its own benefit and to the detriment of is geopolitical rivals," the commentator said.

Rossiya continued:

    For 30 years now, Pakistan has been China's key ally, a sort of buffer for Beijing. Islamabad is the main customer for Chinese weapons. Beijing has been helping with its nuclear program ... Beijing has been allowed to use the port of Gwadar in Balochistan. With this port, China can open a direct energy corridor from Africa and the Middle East.

    Destabilization of Pakistan is a direct challenge to China and China understands this very well ... India, Central Asian states and of course Russia are also watching developments with alarm. As happened many times in history, Washington is creating a problem and then using it to gain new benefits.

Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett, two former Iran hands in the National Security Council during the George W Bush administration wrote in an article in the New York Times recently about much the same thing - that Obama is yet to dismantle the covert program that Bush installed to destabilize Iran.

Hillary Leverett told the BBC last week that Iran had given substantive cooperation on al-Qaeda, including at one point providing Washington with a list of 220 suspects and their whereabouts. In one instance in December 2002, she says, soon after the US gave Tehran the names of five al-Qaeda suspects it believed were in Iran, Tehran found two and delivered them to the US air base at Bagram in Afghanistan.

The Iranian response to the presence of hundreds of al-Qaeda suspects in the region was such that "the [Iranian] Foreign Ministry took the evidence, passports, vital information - and gave us [Washington] pages and even a chart showing the disposition or what they'd done with each person", broken down by "those who had been turned away at the border, or been detained or deported".

Ironically, all this traffic continued for a while even after Bush labeled Iran as part of an "axis of evil" until the hardliners in Washington cried halt to any cooperation with Tehran. No wonder, Iranian rhetoric often contemplates whether al-Qaeda could be a strange beast with stars and stripes.

The Zahedan attack opens a can of worms. Obama needs to be wary of his own team scuttling Iranian attempts at rapprochement. Equally, US special representative for AfPak Richard Holbrooke, who might seek a "grand bargain" with Tehran at some point, shouldn't be surprised if his interlocutors are fundamentally defensive - like cats on a hot tin roof.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 05 Jun 09 - 05:37 PM

UN: New uranium traces found in Syria
         

George Jahn, Associated Press Writer – 20 mins ago

VIENNA – The U.N nuclear agency on Friday reported its second unexplained find of uranium particles at a Syrian nuclear site, in a probe launched by suspicions that a remote desert site hit by Israeli warplanes was a nearly finished plutonium producing reactor.

In a separate report, the International Atomic Energy Agency said Iran continued to expand its uranium enrichment program despite three sets of U.N. Security Council sanctions meant to pressure Tehran into freezing such activities.

And it said the growing pace of enrichment is causing it to review its inspection routine so that it can maintain oversight of the process.

Iran and Syria are under IAEA investigation — Tehran, since revelations more than six years ago of undeclared nuclear activities that could be used to make weapons, and Syria after Israel bombed a structure in 2006 said by the U.S. to be a reactor built with North Korean help.

But the agency has made little progress for over a year in both cases, and both of the restricted reports made available to The Associated Press on Friday essentially confirmed the status quo — stonewalling by both countries of the two separate IAEA probes.

Iran says its nuclear activities are peaceful; Damascus denies hiding any nuclear program.

"In order for the agency to complete its assessment, Syria needs to be more cooperative and transparent," said the IAEA in a document that detailed repeated attempts by agency inspectors to press for renewed inspections and documents — all turned down by Damascus.

Drawing heavily on language of previous reports, the Iran document said Tehran has not "cooperated with the agency ... which gives rise to concerns and which need to be clarified to exclude the possibility of military dimensions to Iran's nuclear program."

The report noted that Tehran continued to rebuff agency efforts to investigate suspicions the Islamic Republic had at least planned to make nuclear weapons.

Without cooperation by the Islamic Republic, the IAEA "will not be in a position to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran," the report said.

Syria and Iran are to come under renewed scrutiny when the 35-nation board of the agency meets June 15 to discuss the two reports.

While the Syrian report was prepared only for the board members, the one on Iran also was transmitted Friday to the Security Council, which for more than three years has tried to pressure Tehran to give up enrichment and other activities of concern.

Tehran says it is exercising its right to develop nuclear power in expanding its enrichment program. But the U.S. other great powers and dozens of additional countries fear Iran might at some point shift from producing low enriched uranium needed for nuclear fuel to making highly enriched matter suitable for use in the core of nuclear warheads.

The IAEA's Iran report reflected continued expansion both in the terms of the equipment in use or being set up and the amount of enriched uranium being turned out by those machines — centrifuges that spin uranium gas into enriched material.

Nearly 5,000 centrifuges were processing uranium gas at the Natanz facility as of May 31, said the report, while more than 2,000 others were ready for operation. More than nearly 3,000 pounds — 1,300 kilograms — of low enriched uranium had been produced as of that date, said the more than four-page report.

That compares to just over 2,220 pounds (1,000 kilograms) mentioned in the last IAEA report in February an amount that experts and U.S. officials subsequently said was enough to process into enough weapons grade uranium for a nuclear warhead.

Commenting on the Iran report, the Washington based Institute for Science and International Security said that at the present pace of production of enriched uranium, Tehran could make two nuclear weapons — should it choose to do so — within eight months.

The report said inspectors have told Tehran that "given the increased number of ... (centrifuges) being installed and the increased rate of production ... improvements to the containment and surveillance measures" are needed. A senior U.N official said the IAEA was considering redirecting surveillance equipment and asking Iranian nuclear staff to change their "walking routes" through the underground Natanz facility as part of the changes. He demanded anonymity in exchange for commenting on the confidential report.

Reversing the previous U.S. stance, the Obama administration has said it is ready to talk one-on-one with Iranian officials on the nuclear issue. Obama himself has said Tehran has the right to benefit from nuclear power — as long as all proliferation concerns are put to rest.

But President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has repeatedly said his country will not negotiate on its right to enrichment.

On Syria, the agency said the newest traces of uranium were found after months of analysis in environmental samples taken last year of a small experimental reactor in Damascus.

It already reported a similar finding in February at a separate site — at or near the building bombed by Israel more than two years ago.

As in the case of the earlier find, the uranium particles "are of a type not included in Syria's declared inventory of nuclear material," said the report, saying their origin and potential significance still "needs to be understood."

It also said Syria continued to deny cooperation with North Korea in building its nuclear program.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 05 Jun 09 - 05:43 PM

Iran in major nuclear expansion, U.N. oversight harder
         

Mark Heinrich – 1 hr 33 mins ago

VIENNA (Reuters) – Iran has significantly expanded uranium enrichment with almost 5,000 centrifuges now operating and this has made it harder for U.N. inspectors to keep track of the disputed nuclear activity, an IAEA report said on Friday.

Obtained by Reuters, the restricted International Atomic Energy Agency report said Iran had increased its rate of production of low-enriched uranium (LEU), boosting its stockpile by 500 kg to 1,339 kg in the past six months.

Iran's improved efficiency in turning out potential nuclear fuel is sure to fan Western fears of the Islamic Republic nearing the ability to make atomic bombs, if it chose to do so.

Oil giant Iran says it wants a uranium enrichment industry solely to provide an alternative source of electricity.

But it has stonewalled an IAEA investigation into suspected past research into bomb-making, calling U.S. intelligence about it forged, and continues to limit the scope of IAEA inspections.

David Albright of the Institute for Science and International Security, a think tank that tracks proliferation issues, said Iran now had accumulated enough LEU to convert into high-enriched uranium (HEU) sufficient for one atom bomb.

This would require reconfiguring Iran's centrifuge network and miniaturizing HEU to fit into a warhead -- technical hurdles that could take 1-2 years or more -- and would not escape the notice of U.N. inspectors unless done at an undeclared location.

There are no indications of any such secret site.

"Still, Iran is ramping up enrichment to reach the point of potential nuclear weapons capability. They haven't made a political decision to do that. But their lack of constraint is disappointing given (U.S. President Barack) Obama's effort to start negotiations," Albright told Reuters from Washington.

JUMP IN CAPACITY

The U.N. nuclear watchdog report said Iran had 4,920 centrifuges, cylinders that spin at supersonic speed, being fed with uranium hexafluoride gas (UF6) for enrichment nonstop as of May 31, a jump of about 25 percent since February.

Another 2,132 machines were installed and undergoing vacuum tests while a further 169 were being set up -- bringing Iran's total number of deployed centrifuges at its underground Natanz enrichment hall to 7,231 -- with 55,000 eventually planned.

The IAEA had told Iran that given the burgeoning numbers of centrifuges and increased pace of enrichment, "improvements to the containment and surveillance measures are required in order for the agency to continue to fully meet its safeguards objectives," the report said, referring to basic inspections.

Senior inspectors were discussing solutions with Iran.

"There is now a forest of 7,000 machines, that's quite a lot, it's a very impressive place, and they will be installing more which could mean 9,000 (soon)," said a senior U.N. official who asked for anonymity to discuss sensitive information.

"That makes it increasingly difficult to do the surveillance (to ensure no diversions for bombmaking purposes elsewhere). We are reviewing (the angles) of our cameras, walking rules (for workers handling equipment), where things are being kept."

At a separate pilot plant in Natanz, Iran continues to test small numbers of a more sophisticated centrifuge than the 1970s vintage it is now using. These models could refine uranium 2-3 times as fast as the P-1, analysts say.

IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei has urged Iran to engage with the United States, "grasp the hand that Obama is extending to you," and negotiate over its nuclear program to ensure it remains civilian under effective monitoring.

But little progress in coaxing Iran to open up to IAEA investigators and grant more wide-ranging inspections is likely without a major thaw in Tehran's relations with Western powers.

"The Iran file has been on the table for six years. It's high time to sort it out. We hope Iran and international community get to the table and start to come up with solutions so we can do our (non-proliferation) job," said the senior U.N. official.

Obama has set a rough timetable for negotiating results with Iran, saying he wanted serious progress by the end of the year. He has underlined that any U.S. overtures will be accompanied by harsher sanctions if there is no cooperation.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Jun 09 - 08:10 AM

A report on Iran's nuclear program issued by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last month generated news stories publicizing an incendiary charge that U.S. intelligence is underestimating Iran's progress in designing a "nuclear warhead" before the halt in nuclear weapons-related research in 2003.

That false and misleading charge from an intelligence official of a foreign country, who was not identified but was clearly Israeli, reinforces two of Israel's key propaganda themes on Iran - that the 2007 U.S. National Intelligence Estimate on Iran is wrong, and that Tehran is poised to build nuclear weapons as soon as possible.

But it also provides new evidence that Israeli intelligence was the source of the collection of intelligence documents which have been used to accuse Iran of hiding nuclear weapons research.

The Committee report, dated May 4, cited unnamed "foreign analysts" as claiming intelligence that Iran ended its nuclear weapons-related work in 2003 because it had mastered the design and tested components of a nuclear weapon and thus didn't need to work on it further until it had produced enough sufficient material.

That conclusion, which implies that Iran has already decided to build nuclear weapons, contradicts both the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate on Iran, and current intelligence analysis. The NIE concluded that Iran had ended nuclear weapons-related work in 2003 because of increased international scrutiny, and that it was "less determined to develop nuclear weapons than we have been judging since 2005."

The report included what appears to be a spectacular revelation from "a senior allied intelligence official" that a collection of intelligence documents supposedly obtained by U.S. intelligence in 2004 from an Iranian laptop computer includes "blueprints for a nuclear warhead."

It quotes the unnamed official as saying that the blueprints "precisely matched" similar blueprints the official's own agency "had obtained from other sources inside Iran."

No U.S. or IAEA official has ever claimed that the so-called laptop documents included designs for a "nuclear warhead." The detailed list in a May 26, 2008 IAEA report of the contents of what have been called the "alleged studies" - intelligence documents on alleged Iranian nuclear weapons work - made no mention of any such blueprints.

In using the phrase "blueprints for a nuclear warhead," the unnamed official was evidently seeking to conflate blueprints for the reentry vehicle of the Iranian Shehab missile, which were among the alleged Iranian documents, with blueprints for nuclear weapons.

When New York Times reporters William J. Broad and David E. Sanger used the term "nuclear warhead" to refer to a reentry vehicle in a Nov. 13, 2005 story on the intelligence documents on the Iranian nuclear program, it brought sharp criticism from David Albright, the president of the Institute for Science and International Security.

"This distinction is not minor," Albright observed, "and Broad should understand the differences between the two objects, particularly when the information does not contain any words such as nuclear or nuclear warhead."

The Senate report does not identify the country for which the analyst in question works, and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee staff refused to respond to questions about the report from IPS, including the reason why the report concealed the identity of the country for which the unidentified "senior allied intelligence official" works.

Reached later in May, the author of the report, Douglas Frantz, told IPS he is under strict instructions not to speak with the news media.

After a briefing on the report for selected news media immediately after its release, however, the Associated Press reported May 6 that interviews were conducted in Israel. Frantz was apparently forbidden by Israeli officials from revealing their national affiliation as a condition for the interviews.

Frantz, a former journalist for the Los Angeles Times, had extensive contacts with high-ranking Israeli military, intelligence and foreign ministry officials before joining the Senate Foreign Relations Committee staff. He and co-author Catherine Collins conducted interviews with those Israeli officials for The Nuclear Jihadist, published in 2007. The interviews were all conducted under rules prohibiting disclosure of their identities, according to the book.

The unnamed Israeli intelligence officer's statement that the "blueprints for a nuclear warhead" - meaning specifications for a missile reentry vehicle - were identical to "designs his agency had obtained from other sources in Iran" suggests that the documents collection which the IAEA has called "alleged studies" actually originated in Israel.

A U.S.-based nuclear weapons analyst who has followed the "alleged studies" intelligence documents closely says he understands that the documents obtained by U.S. intelligence in 2004 were not originally stored on the laptop on which they were located when they were brought in by an unidentified Iranian source, as U.S. officials have claimed to U.S. journalists.

The analyst, who insists on not being identified, says the documents were collected by an intelligence network and then assembled on a single laptop.

The anonymous Israeli intelligence official's claim, cited in the Committee report, that the "blueprints" in the "alleged studies" collection matched documents his agency had gotten from its own source seems to confirm the analyst's finding that Israeli intelligence assembled the documents.

The rest here

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 07 Jun 09 - 07:21 PM

Alaskans concerned about North Korea's missiles

Jun 6, 3:37 PM (ET)

By MARY PEMBERTON

ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) - Alaskans are concerned over the prospect that North Korea is getting ready to test a long-range missile that could reach strategic targets in their home state.

And they're not buying Defense Secretary Robert Gates' assertion during a visit this past week to one of Alaska's many military installations that the missile is not a threat to the United States.

"I think we would definitely be a target because of the oil and the military," said Dale Walberg, owner of a small greenhouse business in Eagle River. "They are just so secretive. What do we really know?"

There's been no direct threat against Alaska or anywhere else, but the missile North Korea is believed to be assembling for a test may have a range of 4,000 miles, putting Hawaii and much of Alaska within reach.

Alaska's two largest cities, Anchorage and Fairbanks, have both Air Force and Army bases. There's also Fort Greely, home of the Missile Defense Complex. The U.S. plans to store 26 ground-based missile interceptors in silos at the base, about 100 miles south of Fairbanks.

Other high-profile potential targets would include Prudhoe Bay, the nation's largest oil field, or Valdez, the terminus of the 800-mile trans-Alaska pipeline.

Bert Cottle, mayor of Valdez, where 16 percent of the nation's domestic oil production is loaded onto tankers for delivery to the West Coast, said he checked with two military leaders in Alaska to get their take on the developing missile situation and was told everything is status quo.

"We will wait for further updates," he said.

In the meantime, the state's political leaders are using the missile situation to send a message to the Obama administration: Maintain a strong military presence in Alaska.

Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, sent a letter to Gates urging him to reconsider a decision to not complete construction of a second missile defense field at Greely and to place a cap on F-22 fighters at Elmendorf Air Force Base.

"We are sending the wrong message to our enemies by stopping the placement of these interceptors," Young's letter said. "While 30 interceptors may be enough to counter the current threat from North Korea, it is clear that it will not be enough in the future."

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090606/D98LCAM81.html

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 05:19 PM

Sources: Iran denies UN nuke agency camera request
         

George Jahn, Associated Press Writer – Thu Jun 11, 11:00 am ET

VIENNA – Diplomats say Iran has rebuffed a bid from the U.N. nuclear monitoring agency to beef up its monitoring ability at a key atomic site.

The diplomats say the International Atomic Energy Agency had asked to place one or more additional surveillance cameras at the Natanz enrichment site, but that the request was turned down by the Islamic Republic in recent weeks.

The also say the IAEA is concerned that Iran will use its recent denial of access to Natanz to agency inspectors seeking a surprise visit as a precedent to refuse additional such inspections.

The three diplomats demanded anonymity Thursday because their information was confidential.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 10:12 PM

AP source: NKorea may be prepping new nuclear test


Jun 11, 8:46 PM (ET)

By PAMELA HESS

WASHINGTON (AP) - North Korea may be preparing for its third nuclear test, a show of defiance as the United Nations considers new sanctions on the dictatorship for conducting an underground nuclear explosion in May, according to a U.S. government official.

North Korea conducted an underground explosion on May 25, its first since a 2006 atomic test. The official, who spoke Thursday on condition of anonymity in order to discuss the unreleased information, would not provide details regarding the assessment.

A draft U.N. resolution proposed Wednesday would impose tough sanctions on North Korea's weapons exports and financial dealings and allow inspections of suspect cargo in ports and on the high seas. North Korea has threatened to retaliate if new sanctions are adopted.

---

Remember the one-screen limit on non-music copy-pastes, Bruce? Excess verbiage deleted. If you want to read the rest of the article, Google it.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 08:06 PM

Don't export nucs, or we'll put it in the papers!






China Warns Against Force in Carrying Out North Korea Sanctions

By Peter S. Green and Bill Varner

June 13 (Bloomberg) -- China warned about the dangers involved in inspecting North Korean cargo under United Nations Security Council sanctions approved yesterday, saying countries intercepting vessels should avoid armed action.

"Under no circumstance should there be the use of force or the threat of use of force" in implementing the sanctions in Resolution 1874, Chinese Ambassador Zhang Yesui said in New York. Inspecting vessels carrying North Korean cargo is "complicated" and "sensitive," he said.

The Security Council voted 15 to O to punish North Korea for its May nuclear-bomb test and missile launches. The resolution authorizes stepped-up inspection of air or sea cargoes suspected of being destined for the development of nuclear arms or ballistic missiles. The measure also calls for new restrictions on loans and money transfers to North Korea.

China's support for the penalties may be significant given its close political and trade ties with the reclusive North Korean regime of Kim Jong Il. The U.S. is especially concerned about preventing North Korea from selling its nuclear technology to other countries.

U.S. Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice said at a White House briefing that the sanctions have "teeth that will bite." She pointed out that the resolution doesn't authorize the use of military force.

The U.S. is prepared to "confront" a vessel suspected of carrying an illegal shipment and attempt to board it "consensually," Rice told reporters. If the crew refuses a boarding or to go to a nearby port for an inspection, the U.S. would make clear "whose vessel it is" and the likely cargo, "to shine a spotlight on it, to make it very difficult for that contraband to continue to be carried forward," Rice added.

---

Remember the one-screen limit on non-music copy-pastes, Bruce? Excess verbiage deleted. If you want to read the rest of the article, Google it.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 08:12 PM

White House: US may confront ships near NKorea

Jun 12, 2:38 PM (ET)

By CHARLES BABINGTON

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Obama administration said Friday that it is prepared to confront ships believed to be carrying contraband materials to North Korea but will not try to forcibly board them.

White House officials said they expect North Korea will act "irresponsibly" to newly imposed sanctions in response to the rogue nation's recent nuclear tests. The U.N. Security Council on Friday imposed sanctions that included expanding an arms embargo and authorizing ship searches on the high seas.

Susan Rice, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, said U.S. officials would seek permission to board and inspect ships believed to be carrying contraband to North Korea. Such ships would be directed to a nearby port for inspection if they could not be boarded at sea, she told reporters at the White House.

Rice said the U.S. would not be surprised if North Korea reacted to the sanctions with "further provocation."

"There's reason to believe they may respond in an irresponsible fashion to this," she said. But she said she expects the sanctions to have significant impact on North Korea's financing of its weapons and missile systems.

Rice said the administration was "very pleased" with the sanctions. She called the new resolution, which was supported by China and Russia, an "unprecedented" position by the Security Council.

The United States and many other nations, including China and Russia, have condemned Pyongyang for its underground nuclear test on May 25 and a series of ground-to-air missile test firings.

Rice said that Iran - another nation at deep odds with the United States about a disputed nuclear program - should take a message from how the U.N. responded to North Korea's actions.

"I imagine that they have been following this closely," Rice said of Iran's leaders. She said Iran should see that "the response from the international community has been very clear, very firm and very meaningful."

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 13 Jun 09 - 10:31 AM

NKorea says it will 'weaponize' its plutonium
         

Kwang-tae Kim, Associated Press Writer – Sat Jun 13, 6:46 am ET

SEOUL, South Korea – North Korea vowed Saturday to step up its atomic bomb-making program and threatened war if its ships are stopped as part of new U.N. sanctions aimed at punishing the nation for its latest nuclear test.

---

Remember the one-screen limit on non-music copy-pastes, Bruce? Excess verbiage deleted. If you want to read the rest of the article, Google it.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Jun 09 - 02:40 PM

Talking to Iran will make it "easier to sell" war on Iran, says man responsible for talking to Iran

As Iranians go to the polls to repudiate (it seems) some of the most pernicious aspects of Ahmadinejad's rule, America's Iran point man continues to make Ahmadinejad look like a reasonable peacenik.

The newly released book by Dennis Ross, President Obama's special adviser on Iran, reads like a how-to manual for launching a war on Iran, marketing the war successfully, and making sure the Iranians cop all the blame for it. Ross will have none of Bush's incompetent warmongering on flimsy pretenses of democracy and WMD's; when Ross launches his illegal war on Iran, it will be stage-managed to within an inch of its life.

"Tougher policies – either militarily or meaningful containment – will be easier to sell internationally and domestically if we have diplomatically tried to resolve our differences with Iran in a serious and credible fashion," writes Ross.

Note that there is no way to read this sentence but to see that the goal is to attack Iran. America trying to diplomatically resolve its differences with Iran is not a goal in itself; it is merely a means to more easily sell war and sanctions.

And, then, of course, we get the special Dennis Ross brand of peacemaking-as-warmongering—Ross's signature dish: derailing negotiations while making it appear to be the other party's fault.

"Such an approach may build pressures within Iran not to forgo the opportunity that has been presented, while also ensuring that the onus is put on Iran for creating a crisis and also for making conflict more likely."

The goal, of course, is not just to bring about a military conflict, but also to make sure that it appears that it was the Iranians who brought about this conflict.

This is exactly what Ross did as "mediator" of the Palestinian-Israeli negotiations, where he used diplomacy to further the aims of Israeli colonialism, as a cover for Israeli colonialism. As Norman Finkelstein shows in his meticulous destruction of Ross' previous book, it was Ross himself who derailed the Palestinian-Israeli negotiations.

Ross simply used his position as "mediator" to push for terms that were even more favorable to Israel than what the Israelis themselves wanted. During the negotiations, he became "furious" at Israelis for considering annexing less land in Palestine, and even said "if [Ehud] Barak offers anything more, I'll be against this agreement." The result was a "generous offer" on which then Israeli Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben-Ami himself commented: "if I were a Palestinian I would have rejected Camp David".

But when the Palestinians rejected this offer, of course, it was a green light for "Israel's Lawyer" to spend the last nine years blaming the Palestinians for rejecting his magnanimous offer. The result is a global green light for the Israeli regime to destroy the Palestinian people and their chances of ever attaining freedom—while placing the blame entirely on the Palestinians.

America can now look forward to seeing this mendacious brand of evil shaping their policy towards Iran over the coming years. Expect to continue to hear Ross talking about the failures of his heroic efforts at diplomacy, and then going on a WINEP-sponsored world tour blaming the Iranians for the conflict he worked so hard to precipitate.

This should leave no doubt that though the Obama Administration is mainly made up of sane humans who do not particularly want to nuke Iran, unreconstructed neocon fanatics like Ross will do all they can to bring about as bad an outcome as possible. Watch this space.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Jun 09 - 03:14 PM

NYT:

"North Korea Vows to Produce Nuclear Weapons

By MARTIN FACKLER
Published: June 13, 2009

SEOUL, South Korea — North Korea responded Saturday to new United Nations sanctions on Friday by defiantly vowing to press forward with the production of nuclear weapons and take "resolute military actions" against international efforts to isolate it.

In a statement on the North's official Korean Central News Agency, an unidentified spokesman for the North Korean Foreign Ministry was quoted as saying that his nation would continue its nuclear program to defend itself against what he called a hostile United States policy. He was quoted as saying that his nation would "weaponize" its existing plutonium stockpiles and begin a program to enrich uranium, which can also be used to make atomic warheads.

The statement, which was light on the vitriol that often colors such missives, was released hours after the United Nations Security Council voted to punish the North for its May 25 nuclear test and its missile tests. The Council tightened sanctions, including an arms embargo and a provision that encourages high-seas searches of North Korean ships.

"We'll take firm military action if the United States and its allies try to isolate us," the spokesman said, according to the KCNA, the news service.

The spokesman said that his nation had "reprocessed more than one-third of our spent nuclear fuel rods."

Since the 1990s, United Nations inspectors have tried to keep track of the spent fuel rods at the Yongbyon nuclear complex; the rods can be reprocessed into weapons-grade plutonium.

American intelligence officials say they believe that North Korea may have one or two nuclear weapons and has produced enough bomb-grade plutonium already for several more.

The United States has also warned in the past that the North may be trying to turn its abundant supplies of natural uranium into material for weapons, but intelligence experts say they believe that such a program is years behind the country's plutonium-based efforts. The North made similar vows about a uranium-based program in April, after a rocket test that started the latest confrontation between North Korea and the West.

Although the sanctions passed Friday tightened restrictions, the United States had hoped for more stringent penalties and for mandatory ship inspections. The Obama administration pushed for those inspections because of fears that the impoverished North would try to sell its weapons or nuclear material.

North Korea has grown increasingly isolated as it has pressed forward with a nuclear program that many analysts say they now believe is aimed at producing an independent nuclear deterrent rather than being used as a bargaining chip with the West for much needed aid.

The long-range missile test in April was part of what many analysts call an effort to produce a delivery system capable of reaching the United States. There have been signs in recent weeks that the North may be preparing for yet another missile test.

"It has become an absolutely impossible option for the D.P.R.K. to even think about giving up its nuclear weapons," Saturday's statement said, using the initials of the North's official name, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
"

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 01:13 PM

"But the ultimate aim of Iran, as I understand it, is that they want to be recognized as a major power in the Middle East and they are. "This is to them the road to get that recognition to power and prestige and ... an insurance policy against what they heard in the past about regime change, axis of evil." - Mohamed ElBaradei IAEA.

So Iran wants nuclear weapons as "an insurance policy against what they heard in the past about regime change, axis of evil" does it?

Perhaps ElBaradei can explain why in that case Iran's efforts to acquire such weapons were carried out in secret and initiated long before any ever mentioned "axis of evil" or "regime change".

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 01:31 PM

Israel has been calling for regime change in Iran for decades. I would expect Iran's reason for doing it in secret would be the same as Israel's reason for doing it in secret.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 05:35 PM

U.S. tracking N. Korea ship with possible weapons, official says

Story Highlights
Joint Chiefs of Staff head: United States will not forcibly board ship

Adm. Michael Mullen may ask to search ship or press ports to inspect it

Efforts to stop ships will be considered an act of war, North Korea says

updated 16 minutes agoNext Article in World »


From Barbara Starr, Chris Lawrence and Mike Mount
CNN
   
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. military is tracking a North Korean ship believed to be carrying illicit weapons or technology, a senior U.S. official said Thursday.

The ship, the Kang Nam, is a North Korean-flagged ship, according to two senior U.S. officials, and is currently in the Pacific.

While the United States does not know what specifically is on the ship, the Kang Nam is a "repeat offender," known for having carried "proliferation materials," one senior defense official said.

Without speaking to any details of the Kang Nam report, Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Thursday that the United States would not forcibly board a North Korean ship but, in accordance with the recent United Nations resolution, would request permission to search the ship or press any port the ship docks in to inspect it for illegal materials.

Mullen told reporters at a news conference that neither the United States nor any other navy would board a ship without permission.

"The United Nations Security Council resolution does not include an option for opposed-boarding or noncompliant boarding with respect to that," he said. "We expect compliance."

North Korea has warned that any effort to stop one of its ships would be considered an act of war.

"To further isolate itself, to further noncomply with international guidance and regulations in the long run puts them in a more difficult position," Mullen said.

---

So, Bruce, why is it that you continually defy our one-screen limit for non-music copy-pastes? Haven't you ever heard of editing? Do you really think that somebody is going to read all that verbiage? Hey, cut it down to one screen of text, willya?
You'll notice that a number of your posts were deleted today. Enough is enough.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Jun 09 - 01:25 PM

"Israel has been calling for regime change in Iran for decades."

Examples of instances of this??

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 22 Jun 09 - 08:28 AM

Al Qaeda says would use Pakistani nuclear weapons

Mon Jun 22, 2009 2:39am IST

DUBAI (Reuters) - If it were in a position to do so, Al Qaeda would use Pakistan's nuclear weapons in its fight against the United States, a top leader of the group said in remarks aired on Sunday.

Pakistan has been battling al Qaeda's Taliban allies in the Swat Valley since April after their thrust into a district 100 km (60 miles) northwest of the capital raised fears the nuclear-armed country could slowly slip into militant hands.

"God willing, the nuclear weapons will not fall into the hands of the Americans and the mujahideen would take them and use them against the Americans," Mustafa Abu al-Yazid, the leader of al Qaeda's in Afghanistan, said in an interview with Al Jazeera television.

Abu al-Yazid was responding to a question about U.S. safeguards to seize control over Pakistan's nuclear weapons in case Islamist fighters came close to doing so.

"We expect that the Pakistani army would be defeated (in Swat) ... and that would be its end everywhere, God willing."

Asked about the group's plans, the Egyptian militant leader said: "The strategy of the (al Qaeda) organisation in the coming period is the same as in the previous period: to hit the head of the snake, the head of tyranny -- the United States.

"That can be achieved through continued work on the open fronts and also by opening new fronts in a manner that achieves the interests of Islam and Muslims and by increasing military operations that drain the enemy financially."

The militant leader suggested that naming a new leader for the group's unit in the Arabian Peninsula, Abu Basir al-Wahayshi, could revive its campaign in Saudi Arabia, the world's top oil exporter.

"Our goals have been the Americans ... and the oil targets which they are stealing to gain power to strike the mujahideen and Muslims."

"There was a setback in work there for reasons that there is no room to state now, but as of late, efforts have been united and there is unity around a single leader."

Abu al-Yazid, also known as Abu Saeed al-Masri, said al Qaeda will continue "with large scale operations against the enemy" -- by which he meant the United States.

"We have demanded and we demand that all branches of al Qaeda carry out such operations," he said, referring to attacks against U.S.-led forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The militant leader said al Qaeda would be willing to accept a truce of about 10 years' duration with the United States if Washington agreed to withdraw its troops from Muslim countries and stopped backing Israel and the pro-Western governments of Muslim nations.

Asked about the whereabouts of al Qaeda's top leaders, he said: "Praise God, sheikh Osama (bin Laden) and sheikh Ayman al-Zawahri are safe from the reach of the enemies, but we would not say where they are; moreover, we do not know where they are, but we're in continuous contact with them."

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 06:38 AM

NKorea warns of 'fire shower of nuclear' attack
         

Jae-soon Chang, Associated Press Writer – 2 mins ago


SEOUL, South Korea – North Korea vowed Thursday to enlarge its atomic arsenal and warned of a "fire shower of nuclear retaliation" in the event of a U.S. attack, as the regime marked the 1950 outbreak of the Korean War.

The anniversary came as the U.S. Navy trailed a North Korean ship suspected of carrying weapons in violation of a U.N. resolution punishing Pyongyang's May 25 nuclear test, and as anticipation mounted that the North might test-fire short- or mid-range missiles in the coming days.

President Barack Obama extended U.S. economic sanctions against North Korea for another year Wednesday, saying the North's possession of "weapons-usable fissile material" and its proliferation risk "continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat" to the United States, according to the White House Web site.

State-run newspapers in Pyongyang ran lengthy editorials accusing the U.S. of invading the country in 1950 and of looking for an opportunity to attack again. The editorials said that justified North Korea's development of atomic bombs to defend itself.

The North "will never give up its nuclear deterrent ... and will further strengthen it" as long as Washington remains hostile, Pyongyang's main Rodong Sinmun newspaper said.

In a separate commentary, the Rodong blasted a recent U.S. pledge to defend South Korea with its nuclear weapons, saying that amounted to "asking for the calamitous situation of having a fire shower of nuclear retaliation all over South Korea."

The Minju Joson, another state-run newspaper, said the U.S. should withdraw its troops from South Korea and drop its "hostile" policy toward the North, saying those were "key to resolving the Korean peninsula issue."

Historical evidence shows it was North Korea that started the Korean War by invading the South, but Pyongyang claims the U.S. was to blame. The totalitarian government apparently hopes to infuse North Koreans with fear of a fresh American attack to better control the hunger-stricken population.

The U.S. fought alongside the South, leading U.N. forces, during the war. The conflict ended in 1953 with a truce, not a peace treaty, leaving the peninsula divided and in a state of war. The U.S. has 28,500 troops in South Korea to protect against hostilities.

The U.S. has repeatedly said it has no intention of attacking the North.

The new U.N. resolution seeks to clamp down on North Korea's trading of banned arms and weapons-related material by requiring U.N. member states to request inspections of ships carrying suspected cargo.

North Korea has said it would consider interception of its ships a declaration of war.

The U.S. has been seeking to get key nations to enforce the sanctions aggressively. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton called the foreign ministers of Russia and China on Wednesday to discuss efforts to enforce the U.N. punishments, State Department spokesman Ian Kelly said.

On Tuesday, Obama called Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and discussed how to ensure the U.N. sanctions are fully implemented, the White House said in a statement Wednesday.

The Kang Nam is the first North Korean ship to be tracked under the resolution. It left the North Korean port of Nampo a week ago and is believed bound for Myanmar, South Korean and U.S. officials said.

Myanmar state television on Wednesday evening said another North Korean vessel was expected to pick up a load of rice and that the government had no information about the Kang Nam.

A senior U.S. defense official said Wednesday that the ship had already cleared the Taiwan Strait.

He said he didn't know how much range the Kang Nam has — whether or when it may need to stop at a port to refuel — but that the ship has in the past stopped in Hong Kong.

Another U.S. defense official said he tended to doubt reports that the Kang Nam was carrying nuclear-related equipment, saying the information officials had received seemed to indicate the cargo was conventional munitions.

The U.S. officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were discussing intelligence.

The U.S. and its allies have not decided whether to contact and request an inspection of the ship, Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell said Wednesday. He said he did not believe a decision would come soon.

Reports about possible missile launches from the North highlighted the tension on the Korean peninsula.

The North has designated a no-sail zone off its east coast from June 25 to July 10 for military drills.

A senior South Korean government official said the ban is believed connected to North Korean plans to fire short- or mid-range missiles. He spoke on condition of anonymity, citing department policy.

South Korea's Yonhap news agency reported that the North may fire a Scud missile with a range of up to 310 miles (500 kilometers) or a short-range ground-to-ship missile with a range of 100 miles (160 kilometers) during the no-sail period.

U.S. defense and counterproliferation officials in Washington said they also expected the North to launch short- to medium-range missiles. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive intelligence.

North Korea had warned previously it would fire a long-range missile as a response to U.N. Security Council condemnation of an April rocket launch seen as a cover for its ballistic missile technology.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 06:44 AM

NKorea threatens US; world anticipates missile
         

Hyung-jin Kim, Associated Press Writer – Wed Jun 24, 8:51 am ET

SEOUL, South Korea – North Korea threatened Wednesday to wipe the United States off the map as Washington and its allies watched for signs the regime will launch a series of missiles in the coming days.

Off China's coast, a U.S. destroyer was tailing a North Korean ship suspected of transporting illicit weapons to Myanmar in what could be the first test of U.N. sanctions passed to punish the nation for an underground nuclear test last month.

The Kang Nam left the North Korean port of Nampo a week ago with the USS John S. McCain close behind. The ship, accused of transporting banned goods in the past, is believed bound for Myanmar, according to South Korean and U.S. officials.

The new U.N. Security Council resolution requires member states to seek permission to inspect suspicious cargo. North Korea has said it would consider interception a declaration of war and on Wednesday accused the U.S. of seeking to provoke another Korean War.

"If the U.S. imperialists start another war, the army and people of Korea will ... wipe out the aggressors on the globe once and for all," the official Korean Central News Agency said.

The warning came on the eve of the 59th anniversary of the start of the three-year Korean War, which ended in a truce in 1953, not a peace treaty, leaving the peninsula in state of war.

The U.S. has 28,500 troops in South Korea to protect against an outbreak of hostilities.

Tensions have been high since North Korea launched a long-range rocket in April and then conducted its second underground atomic test on May 25.

Reacting to U.N. condemnation of that test, North Korea walked away from nuclear disarmament talks and warned it would fire a long-range missile.

North Korea has banned ships from the waters off its east coast starting Thursday through July 10 for military exercises, Japan's Coast Guard said.

South Korea's Yonhap news agency reported Wednesday that the North may fire a Scud missile with a range of up to 310 miles (500 kilometers) or a short-range ground-to-ship missile with a range of 100 miles (160 kilometers) during the no-sail period.

A senior South Korean government official said the no-sail ban is believed connected to North Korean plans to fire short- or mid-range missiles. He spoke on condition of anonymity, citing department policy.

U.S. defense and counterproliferation officials in Washington said they also expected the North to launch short- to medium-range missiles. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive intelligence.

South Korea will expedite the introduction of high-tech unmanned aerial surveillance systems and "bunker-buster" bombs in response to North Korea's provocations, the Chosun Ilbo newspaper said, citing unidentified ruling party members.

Meanwhile, a flurry of diplomatic efforts were under way to try getting North Korea to return to disarmament talks.

Russia's top nuclear envoy, Alexei Borodavkin, said after meeting with his South Korean counterpart that Moscow is open to other formats for discussion since Pyongyang has pulled out of formal six-nation negotiations.

In Beijing, top U.S. and Chinese defense officials also discussed North Korea. U.S. Defense Undersecretary Michele Flournoy was heading next to Tokyo and Seoul for talks.

South Korea has proposed high-level "consultations" to discuss North Korea with the U.S., Russia, China and Japan.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 12:28 PM

N. Koreans mass at rally in capital to denounce US
         
Jae-soon Chang, Associated Press Writer – 2 hrs 10 mins ago

SEOUL, South Korea – Tens of thousands of North Koreans shouted slogans to denounce international sanctions at a rally in central Pyongyang on Thursday, as the communist country vowed to enlarge its atomic arsenal and warned of a "fire shower of nuclear retaliation" in the event of a U.S. attack.

The rally marked the 1950 outbreak of the Korean War, which about 5,000 people — mostly American and South Korean veterans and war widows — also commemorated at a ceremony in Seoul.

The anniversary came a day after President Barack Obama extended U.S. economic sanctions against North Korea, saying its arsenal and the risk of proliferation "continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat" to the United States, according to the White House Web site.

The U.S. measures are on top of U.N. sanctions imposed on the North over its nuclear test in May. The U.N. sanctions bar member states from buying weapons from or selling them to North Korea. They also ban the sale of luxury goods to the isolated country and financial transactions.

In Pyongyang, an estimated 100,000 packed the main square, shouting "Let's smash!" in unison while punching clenched fists in the air, footage from APTN in North Korea showed. A placard showed hands crushing a missile with "U.S." written on it.

The isolated, totalitarian regime often organizes such massive rallies at times of tension with the outside world.

North Korea's "armed forces will deal an annihilating blow that is unpredictable and unavoidable, to any 'sanctions' or provocations by the US," Pak Pyong Jong, first vice chairman of the Pyongyang City People's Committee, told the crowd.

State-run newspapers ran lengthy editorials accusing the U.S. of invading the country in 1950 and of looking for an opportunity to attack again. The editorials said those actions justified North Korea's development of atomic bombs to defend itself.

The North "will never give up its nuclear deterrent ... and will further strengthen it" as long as Washington remains hostile, Pyongyang's main Rodong Sinmun newspaper said.

At the rally in Seoul, Minister of Patriots and Veterans Affairs Kim Yang called for North Korea to "abandon all programs related to nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles."

The new U.N. resolution — passed to punish Pyongyang after its May 25 nuclear test — seeks to clamp down on North Korea's trading of banned arms and weapons-related material by requiring U.N. member states to request inspections of ships carrying suspicious cargo.

North Korea has said it would consider any interception of its ships a declaration of war.

The U.S. Navy is currently following a North Korean ship suspected of carrying weapons in violation of the resolution, but Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell said Wednesday that the U.S. and its allies have not decided whether to contact and request an inspection of the ship.

The Kang Nam left the North Korean port of Nampo a week ago and is believed bound for Myanmar, South Korean and U.S. officials have said. A senior U.S. defense official said Wednesday that the ship had already cleared the Taiwan Strait.

Another U.S. defense official said he tended to doubt reports that the Kang Nam was carrying nuclear-related equipment, saying the information officials had received seemed to indicate the cargo was conventional munitions.

The U.S. officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were discussing intelligence.

Adding to the tensions, anticipation is mounting that the North might test-fire short- or mid-range missiles in the coming days. The North has designated a no-sail zone off its east coast from June 25 to July 10 for military drills.

A senior South Korean government official said the ban is believed connected to North Korean plans to fire short- or mid-range missiles. He spoke on condition of anonymity, citing department policy.

The North has also been holding two U.S. journalists since March. The reporters, Laura Ling and Euna Lee, were sentenced to 12 years of hard labor for illegal border crossing and hostile acts earlier this month.

Ling's husband, Iain Clayton, said Wednesday that his wife called him on Sunday night and she sounded scared. He also said Ling's medical condition has deteriorated and Lee has developed a medical problem. Ling reportedly suffers from an ulcer.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: ard mhacha
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 02:25 PM

http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/world/asia_pacific/new+footage+of+deadly+afghan+bombing/3228957

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 30 Jun 09 - 06:47 AM

NKorea criticizes US missile defense for Hawaii

By HYUNG-JIN KIM
The Associated Press
Monday, June 29, 2009 1:00 AM



SEOUL, South Korea -- North Korea criticized the U.S. on Monday for positioning missile defense systems around Hawaii, calling the deployment part of a plot to attack the regime and saying it would bolster its nuclear arsenal in retaliation.

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said he ordered the deployment of a ground-based, mobile missile intercept system and radar system to Hawaii amid concerns the North may fire a long-range missile toward the islands, about 4,500 miles away.

"Through the U.S. forces' clamorous movements, it has been brought to light that the U.S. attempt to launch a pre-emptive strike on our republic has become a brutal fact," the North's main Rodong Sinmun newspaper said in a commentary.

The paper also accused the U.S. of deploying nuclear-powered aircraft and atomic-armed submarines in waters near the Korean peninsula, saying the moves prove "the U.S. pre-emptive nuclear war" on the North is imminent.

The commentary, carried by the official Korean Central News Agency, said the North will bolster its nuclear arsenal in self-defense.

The North routinely accuses the U.S. of plotting to invade the North. But the U.S., which has 28,500 troops in South Korea, has said it has no such plan.

Tensions on the Korean peninsula have been running high since the North defiantly launched a rocket in April and conducted an underground nuclear test last month, prompting U.N. Security Council sanctions.

North Korea responded to the U.N. resolution on the nuclear test with threats of war, and pledged to expand its nuclear bomb-making program.

In what could be the first test of the U.N. sanctions, an American destroyer has been tracking a North Korean ship sailing off China's coast amid suspicions that it is carrying illicit weapons.

The Kang Nam, which left a North Korean port on June 17, is the first vessel monitored under U.N. sanctions that ban the regime from selling arms and weapons-related material. The resolution requires member nations to request permission to inspect the cargo of ships suspected of carrying banned goods.

The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, said on CBS television Sunday that Washington is "following the progress of that ship very closely." Rice would not say whether the U.S. would confront the Kang Nam.

North Korea has said it would consider any interception of its ships a declaration of war.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 02 Jul 09 - 06:11 AM

July 2nd, 2009
Yonhap: North Korea test-fires missiles
Posted: 05:35 AM ET

SEOUL, South Korea (CNN) — North Korea test-fired what appeared to be two short-range missiles off its east coast on Thursday, South Korea's Yonhap news agency reported.

"One was fired at 5:20 p.m. and the other at 6 p.m. from Sinsang-ni," near the eastern coastal city of Wonsan, South Korean defense ministry spokesman Won Tae-jae said, according to Yonhap.

The launch was expected. The North Korean government issued a warning to mariners to avoid an area in the Sea of Japan at certain times between June 24 and July 9 because of a "military firing exercise," according to a U.S. military communication about the warning provided to CNN.

The North issued a similar warning before testing a long-range missile in April, but that warning indicated two potential danger areas more indicative of a long-range missile test.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 02 Jul 09 - 10:02 AM

Time for an Israeli Strike?


By John R. Bolton
Thursday, July 2, 2009

With Iran's hard-line mullahs and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps unmistakably back in control, Israel's decision of whether to use military force against Tehran's nuclear weapons program is more urgent than ever.

Iran's nuclear threat was never in doubt during its presidential campaign, but the post-election resistance raised the possibility of some sort of regime change. That prospect seems lost for the near future or for at least as long as it will take Iran to finalize a deliverable nuclear weapons capability.

Accordingly, with no other timely option, the already compelling logic for an Israeli strike is nearly inexorable. Israel is undoubtedly ratcheting forward its decision-making process. President Obama is almost certainly not.

He still wants "engagement" (a particularly evocative term now) with Iran's current regime. Last Thursday, the State Department confirmed that Secretary Hillary Clinton spoke to her Russian and Chinese counterparts about "getting Iran back to negotiating on some of these concerns that the international community has." This is precisely the view of Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, reflected in the Group of Eight communique the next day. Sen. John Kerry thinks the recent election unpleasantness in Tehran will delay negotiations for only a few weeks.

Obama administration sources have opined (anonymously) that Iran will be more eager to negotiate than it was before its election in order to find "acceptance" by the "international community." Some leaks indicated that negotiations had to produce results by the U.N. General Assembly's opening in late September, while others projected that they had until the end of 2009 to show progress. These gauzy scenarios assume that the Tehran regime cares about "acceptance" or is somehow embarrassed by eliminating its enemies. Both propositions are dubious.

Obama will nonetheless attempt to jump-start bilateral negotiations with Iran, though time is running out even under the timetables leaked to the media. There are two problems with this approach. First, Tehran isn't going to negotiate in good faith. It hasn't for the past six years with the European Union as our surrogates, and it won't start now. As Clinton said on Tuesday, Iran has "a huge credibility gap" because of its electoral fraud. Second, given Iran's nuclear progress, even if the stronger sanctions Obama has threatened could be agreed upon, they would not prevent Iran from fabricating weapons and delivery systems when it chooses, as it has been striving to do for the past 20 years. Time is too short, and sanctions failed long ago.


Only those most theologically committed to negotiation still believe Iran will fully renounce its nuclear program. Unfortunately, the Obama administration has a "Plan B," which would allow Iran to have a "peaceful" civil nuclear power program while publicly "renouncing" the objective of nuclear weapons. Obama would define such an outcome as "success," even though in reality it would hardly be different from what Iran is doing and saying now. A "peaceful" uranium enrichment program, "peaceful" reactors such as Bushehr and "peaceful" heavy-water projects like that under construction at Arak leave Iran with an enormous breakout capability to produce nuclear weapons in very short order. And anyone who believes the Revolutionary Guard Corps will abandon its weaponization and ballistic missile programs probably believes that there was no fraud in Iran's June 12 election. See "huge credibility gap," supra.

In short, the stolen election and its tumultuous aftermath have dramatically highlighted the strategic and tactical flaws in Obama's game plan. With regime change off the table for the coming critical period in Iran's nuclear program, Israel's decision on using force is both easier and more urgent. Since there is no likelihood that diplomacy will start or finish in time, or even progress far enough to make any real difference, there is no point waiting for negotiations to play out. In fact, given the near certainty of Obama changing his definition of "success," negotiations represent an even more dangerous trap for Israel.

Those who oppose Iran acquiring nuclear weapons are left in the near term with only the option of targeted military force against its weapons facilities. Significantly, the uprising in Iran also makes it more likely that an effective public diplomacy campaign could be waged in the country to explain to Iranians that such an attack is directed against the regime, not against the Iranian people. This was always true, but it has become even more important to make this case emphatically, when the gulf between the Islamic revolution of 1979 and the citizens of Iran has never been clearer or wider. Military action against Iran's nuclear program and the ultimate goal of regime change can be worked together consistently.

Otherwise, be prepared for an Iran with nuclear weapons, which some, including Obama advisers, believe could be contained and deterred. That is not a hypothesis we should seek to test in the real world. The cost of error could be fatal.

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

U.S. military chief says clock ticking on Iran nuke
Wed Jul 8, 2009 4:37am IST   By David Morgan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The top U.S. military officer warned on Tuesday that time is running out for dialogue with Tehran to avoid either a nuclear-armed Iran or a possible military strike against the Islamic Republic.

Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, said it is critical for diplomatic efforts to reach a solution before Iran develops a nuclear weapon or faces an Israeli or U.S. strike to turn back its nuclear program.

"That window is a very narrow window," Mullen told an audience at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank.

"There's a great deal that certainly depends on the dialogue and the engagement," he said. "I'm hopeful that that dialogue is productive. I worry about it a great deal if it's not."

Mullen noted that some forecasters believe Iran could be as little as a year away from developing a nuclear bomb, adding: "The clock has continued to tick."

The Obama administration hopes to coax Tehran into negotiating over its nuclear program. Washington and its allies say the program is aimed at producing nuclear weapons, but Iran insists it is a civilian electricity program.

Israel has said a nuclear-armed Iran would be a threat to its existence and points to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's calls for Israel to be wiped off the map.

That has raised concerns that Israel could ultimately carry out a military strike against Iranian nuclear sites.

U.S. President Barack Obama said in an interview the United States had "absolutely not" given Israel a green light to attack Iran over its nuclear program, but he said Washington cannot "dictate to other countries what their security interests are."

"It is the policy of the United States to try to resolve the issue of Iran's nuclear capabilities in a peaceful way through diplomatic channels," Obama told CNN during his trip to Russia.

Vice President Joe Biden said in an interview with ABC's "This Week" program on Sunday that Israel had a sovereign right to act in its best interest in dealing with Iran's nuclear ambitions. The comment was seen by some as giving Israel a green light to attack.

Mullen told his audience that Washington must keep all options on the table as it pursues dialogue with Iran, "including certainly military options."

But he said a military strike -- like the development of an Iranian nuclear bomb itself -- would be "very destabilizing" for the Middle East and pose unpredictable consequences for U.S. allies and interests.

"It (a military strike) is a really important place to not go, if we can not go there in any way, shape or form," the admiral said.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 15 Jul 09 - 02:30 PM

Germany's BND denies report on Iran bomb timing

Wed Jul 15, 2009 1:39pm GMT

BERLIN (Reuters) - Germany's foreign intelligence agency BND denied a report in a magazine on Wednesday that its experts believe Iran is capable of producing and testing an atomic bomb within six months.

The report, in German weekly Stern, cited BND experts as saying Iran had mastered the enrichment technology necessary to make a bomb and had enough centrifuges to make weaponised uranium.

It quoted one expert at the agency as saying: "If they wanted to, they could detonate an atomic bomb in half a year's time."

But a BND spokesman said the article did not reflect the view of the agency, which is that Iran would not be able to produce an atomic bomb for years.

"We are talking about several years not several months," the spokesman said.

Iran says its nuclear programme is for electricity generation to help it export more of its oil and gas, but Western countries suspect it of trying to make a nuclear bomb.

"(Six months) is absolutely a worst-case analysis," said Mark Fitzpatrick, senior non-proliferation fellow at London's International Institute for Strategic Studies.

He said that while it might be plausible in theory that Iran could further enrich uranium in a large enough quantity for a bomb as well as restarting the weapon design work it halted in 2003, these actions would not go unnoticed.

He said there was also disagreement as to how advanced the weapons design work was.

"If Iran were to go for broke and produce a nuclear weapon in this manner, it would have to expel International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors and the world would know," he said.

The U.N. Security Council has imposed three sets of sanctions on Tehran for defying its demands to suspend uranium enrichment.

Some analysts say Iran may be close to having the required material for producing a bomb, but most say the weaponisation process would then take one to two years due to technical and political hurdles.

Until now there have been no indications of any such covert diversion, a point made by the IAEA's incoming director-general shortly after his election earlier this month.

Current IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei has said it is his "gut feeling" that Iran is seeking at least the capability to build nuclear weapons, in order to protect itself from perceived regional and U.S. threats.

The Islamic Republic has largely rebuffed efforts by U.S. President Barack Obama for dialogue and has sharpened its rhetoric against the West following its disputed presidential election in June

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Jul 09 - 03:31 PM

US investigator exposes Iran's nuclear weapons 'shopping list'

A senior US financial investigator has revealed Iran's detailed 'shopping list' for nuclear and missile parts after uncovering a vast procurement network for materials related to weapons of mass destruction.

By Philip Sherwell in New York
Published: 5:10PM BST 24 May 2009

Robert Morgenthau, the New York district attorney who is heading a long-term investigation into the Islamic regime's complex web of illicit overseas financial operations, told US senators there was little time left to halt Tehran's atomic weapons programme.

His warning is all the more sobering as Iran last week successfully test-fired a sophisticated medium-range missile that could strike Israel, central Europe and Western forces in the Middle East and Afghanistan with warheads.

"It's late in the game and we don't have a lot of time to stop Iran from developing long-range missiles and nuclear weapons," Mr Morgenthau told a recent Senate hearing. He described Iran's quest as "deadly serious".

His unit's findings also highlight the risks facing President Barack Obama as he hopes to forge improved diplomatic relations with Tehran at the same time as Iran presses ahead with a nuclear programme.

Mr Obama issued a timetable for future talks with Iran for the first time last week, telling the visiting Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, that he expected to know by the end of the year whether Tehran was making "a good faith effort to resolve differences".

But some senior figures in Israel are now increasingly convinced that the Obama administration believes that a nuclear-armed Iran is inevitable.

Mr Morgenthau's investigation has brought to light a multi-billion-dollar scam under which Iran channelled funds through Western financial institutions to buy banned dual-use materials for its nuclear and missile programmes. Lloyds TSB has already agreed to pay a fine and forfeiture of $350 million (£220 million) for its role in helping to disguise transactions.

The investigation has revealed that the Iranians were negotiating to buy 400 gyrometers, 600 accelerometers and 100 pieces of the metal tantalum - crucial technology for building accurate long-range missiles that could deliver nuclear payloads.

Mr Morgenthau's unit, which has prosecuted several major US white-collar criminal cases, also established that LIMMT, a Chinese company that has long been a major supplier of banned weapons material to Iran, had shipped a long list of weapons-related materials to Iran after skirting international financial sanctions.

The items included 15,000 kgs of specialised aluminium alloy used almost exclusively in long-range missile production; 1,700 kgs of graphite cylinders used for banned electrical discharge machines; more than 30,000 kgs of tungsten-copper plates; 200 tungsten-copper alloy hollow cylinders; 19,000 kgs of tungsten metal powder and 24,500 kgs of maraging steel rods, which are favoured for their superior strength.

"It's the usual list of items that Iran needs for its missile and weapons programmes," said John Pike, director of globalsecurity.org, a private security research group. "Whether it's dual use or not is irrelevant. The Iranians are acquiring a glass half-full. They can use that stuff for what they want when they get it."

Mr Morgenthau's office has issued a 118-count indictment against LIMMT and its owner Li Fang Wei for allegedly misusing New York banks via front companies and supplying illicit missile and nuclear technology to Iran. But there are believed to be other targets of the "broad and ongoing" investigation.

His office consulted weapons experts from the CIA, private institutions and universities about what it had uncovered. They were "shocked by the sophistication of the equipment they're buying", he told a hearing of the Senate foreign relations committee.

Those findings were backed up by a staff report by the same committee.

It concluded that Iran could produce enough weapons-grade material to make a bomb within six months and that the regime was operating a "a broad network of front organisations" to purchase weapons material.

Nicholas Burns, the former top American diplomat on Iran, gave a blunt assessment of Iran's motives at the hearing. "I do see the Iranians as a real threat to our country," he said. "There is no question they are seeking a nuclear weapons capability. No one doubts that. They are the principal funder of most of the Middle East terrorist groups that are shooting at us, shooting at the Israelis and the moderate Palestinians.

"And they are influential in Iraq and Afghanistan and sometimes in ways that are very negative to US interests."

The US, Israel, Britain and other Western European nations believe that Iran is secretly developing atomic weapons but Tehran insists that its nuclear programme is for civilian energy purposes.

The regime has recently been focusing on developing reliable medium and long-range missiles as last week's successful test-fire and the deals uncovered by Mr Morgenthau confirm.

The successful launch of the Sejil-2 rocket, which has an estimated 1,200 mile range and a new navigation system and sophisticated sensors, was further sign of its growing missile capacity, weapons experts said.

Iran is moving away from the liquid-fuelled Shahab-3 obtained from North Korea using Pakistani technology, to solid fuel rockets as they are easier to store, move, hide and assemble - and thus harder for Israel or others to target if they launched air strikes.

Mr Netanyahu reiterated Israel's concerns that Iran would soon cross the "no return" threshold for nuclear weapon know-how in his talks with President Obama in Washington. But there is a growing suspicion in Israel that the White House now believes that a nuclear-armed Tehran is inevitable and is preparing policy for dealing with that reality.

"The Americans are in a state of mind according to which Iran has already gone nuclear," Dr Mordechai Kedar, a 25-year veteran of Israeli military intelligence now based at Bar-Ilan's Begin Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, told The Jerusalem Post. "Obama has given up."

Emily Landau, director of the Arms Control and Regional Security Program at Tel Aviv University's Institute for National Security Studies, said: "Even at the official level, [US Secretary of State Hillary] Clinton is on record as saying that the chances of success for negotiations with Iran are very small. If you're going into negotiations which you say ahead of time will likely fail, you're giving the sense that you might not be doing everything possible [to stop the Iranian nuclear programme].

"The US administration is projecting some kind of sense that they're not taking these negotiations seriously enough. If they just go through the motions, but they don't believe talks will succeed, that is worrisome," she said.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Jul 09 - 07:28 PM

Diplomats: Iran has means to test bomb in 6 months

Jul 17 05:35 PM US/Eastern
By GEORGE JAHN
Associated Press Writer Comments (58)      Share on Facebook         


VIENNA (AP) - Iran is blocking U.N. nuclear agency attempts to upgrade monitoring of its atomic program while advancing those activities to the stage that the country would have the means to test a weapon within six months, diplomats told The Associated Press Friday.
The diplomats emphasized that there were no indications of plans for such a nuclear test, saying it was highly unlikely Iran would risk heightened confrontation with the West—and chances of Israeli attack—by embarking on such a course.


But they said that even as Iran expands uranium enrichment, which can create fissile nuclear material, it is resisting International Atomic Energy Agency attempts to increase surveillance of its enrichment site meant to keep pace with the plant's increased size and complexity.

For Iran to amass enough fissile material to conduct an underground test similar to North Korea's 2006 nuclear explosion, it would likely have to kick out monitors of the IAEA—the U.N. nuclear agency—from its one known uranium enrichment site at Natanz. Technicians then could reconfigure the centrifuges now churning out nuclear-fuel grade enriched uranium to highly enriched, weapons-grade material.

Iran is unlikely, however, to want to do that. Such a move would immediately set off international alarm bells and could bridge rifts on how strongly to react—Russia and China, which have resisted Western calls to increase pressure on Iran over its nuclear defiance, would likely endorse more sweeping U.N sanctions and other penalties.

With the U.N. nuclear agency strictly limited in its nuclear monitoring of Iran, the existence of a hidden enrichment site that could supply the weapons-grade uranium needed for a nuclear weapons test is also possible.

International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed Elbaradei has repeatedly warned that his agency cannot guarantee that Iran is not hiding nuclear activities. Iranian nuclear expert David Albright on Friday put the chances that such a secret site exists at "50-50."

more

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 Jul 09 - 10:49 AM

Clinton: NKorea running out of options on nukes
         
N. Korea says nuclear talks are 'over'


Robert Burns, Ap National Security Writer – 1 hr 13 mins ago

PHUKET, Thailand – Faced with a fresh refusal by North Korea to give up its nuclear weapons program, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Thursday the communist regime has "no friends left" to shield it from punishing U.N. penalties.

"North Korea's continued pursuit of its nuclear ambitions is sure to elevate tensions on the Korean peninsula and could provoke an arms race in the region," Clinton told a news conference after conferring with officials from 26 other countries and organizations. She cited near unanimity on fully enforcing the latest U.N. sanctions against North Korea for its repeated nuclear and missile tests.

Clinton said the U.S. will continue to insist that North Korea return to the bargaining table and verifiably dismantle its nuclear program. At the same time, she held out the prospect of restoring U.S. diplomatic ties to North Korea and other incentives — actions the Obama administration would be willing to consider only if the North Koreans take irreversible steps to denuclearize.

Just before she spoke, a North Korean official declared the six-party talks on denuclearizing North Korea over. And the North Korean Foreign Ministry ridiculed Clinton, saying in a statement that she has "made a spate of vulgar remarks" that "suggest that she is by no means intelligent."

Before departing for Washington after a weeklong trip to India and Thailand, Clinton offered a somewhat more optimistic message about another trouble spot on the U.S. foreign policy agenda: Myanmar, the military-run southeast Asian nation also known as Burma.

"There is a positive direction that we see with Burma," she said. She praised Myanmar's government for committing to enforce the U.N. sanctions against North Korea, calling it important in light of Myanmar's suspected secret military links to North Korea.

And she suggested Myanmar may have played a role this month in persuading a North Korean cargo ship suspected of carrying weaponry in violation of the sanctions to return home instead of continuing to its destination, which U.S. officials said was probably Myanmar.

Clinton also called on Myanmar to unconditionally release democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi, who is accused of violating the terms of her house arrest.

On North Korea, Clinton stressed a point she has made repeatedly — that a fully nuclear North Korea might compel other countries in Asia to follow suit. She mentioned no names, but Japan and South Korea are thought to be among those that might go nuclear under circumstances in which they felt threatened by the North and less than fully confident of protection under a U.S. nuclear umbrella.

Clinton also said, "I wanted to make very clear that the United States does not seek any kind of offensive action against North Korea." She said a North Korean delegate at Thursday's meeting complained of being subjected to U.S. nuclear threats, but she said this showed a disconnect with reality, given that U.S. nuclear weapons were removed from South Korea nearly 20 years ago.

She said the world — including China, which has been North Korea's most loyal supporter — has made it clear to Pyongyang that it has "no place to go."

"They have no friends left that will protect them from the international community's efforts to move toward denuclearization," she said.

Just moments before she spoke at this southern Thai seaside resort, a spokesman for the North Korean delegation at the Phuket conference said his government will not return to six-party talks with the U.S., Japan, South Korea, China and Russia, citing the "deep-rooted anti-North Korean policy" of the United States.

"The six-party talks are over," Ri Hung Sik said.

The Phuket forum, known as the Asian Regional Forum and drawing senior officials from 27 nations, is one of the rare instances of U.S. and North Korean diplomats appearing together, although U.S. officials said there was no substantive contact. Clinton told the news conference she was disappointed in what she heard from the North Korean delegate who addressed the conference.

"The question is: Where do we go from here?" she asked.

Her reply, essentially, was that the U.S. and its negotiating partners will not back down from their insistence that North Korea not only resume negotiations but scrap its nuclear program in a verifiable way and return to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. And she said the U.N. sanctions will be applied as strictly and fully as possible.

"The bottom line is this: If North Korea intends to engage in international commerce its vessels must conform to terms" of the U.N. sanctions, "or find no port," she said.

Clinton said the Obama administration would soon send Philip Goldberg, its coordinator for implementing the U.N. sanctions that were approved by the Security Council in June, back to Asia for a new round of consultations on enforcement.

And, in what she called an illustration of U.S. concern about the welfare of North Korea's people, Clinton said the administration intends to appoint a special envoy to focus on North Korean human rights.

North Korea's Foreign Ministry, still smarting from an earlier Clinton comment likening the regime to "small children" demanding attention, released a statement Thursday saying: "We cannot but regard Mrs. Clinton as a funny lady as she likes to utter such rhetoric, unaware of the elementary etiquette in the international community. Sometimes she looks like a primary schoolgirl and sometimes a pensioner going shopping."

Turning to another major security problem, Clinton held a one-on-one meeting with Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi and said afterward that the Pakistani military's progress in fighting Taliban insurgents has been "encouraging" but incomplete.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Aug 09 - 05:26 PM

Washington Post:

The Tehran File

The IAEA needs to tell the world what it knows about Iran's nuclear program -- and soon.

Monday, August 24, 2009

SEPTEMBER WILL be a crucial month for the Obama administration's efforts to rein in Iran's nuclear program. President Obama has said that Iran must respond to his offer of direct talks or risk tougher economic sanctions. Having crushed protests against President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's probably fraudulent reelection, the Tehran regime has allowed inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency to visit a nearly completed heavy water reactor, and has granted greater access to a uranium enrichment site. But these are token gestures, aimed at giving China and Russia reasons to resist possible American and European pressure for sanctions, as well as a sop to the IAEA itself, which has little to show for its indulgent approach to Iran under Director General Mohamed ElBaradei.

Indeed, Mr. ElBaradei faces his own moment of truth next month. The IAEA's 35-nation board of governors will convene in Vienna for four days starting Sept. 7 and again Sept. 22. Mr. ElBaradei will be closely questioned about a document in his possession that, according to recent media accounts, summarizes everything his agency knows about Iran. The picture -- which reportedly includes development of nuclear warheads and missiles to deliver them -- is not benign. Mr. ElBaradei has had this information since September 2008 but has resisted calls by the United States and its allies to circulate the report among the IAEA board.

This is consistent with Mr. ElBaradei's overall performance for the past 12 years, during which he went beyond his technical role to denounce "crazies" in the Bush administration who, he said, were hell-bent on bombing Iran. Meanwhile, Mr. ElBaradei has shown extraordinary patience in the face of Iranian stonewalling. Just two months ago, he conceded that his "gut feeling" is that Iran wants nuclear weapons capability. But, he said, this was the regime's understandable way "to get that recognition to power and prestige and . . . an insurance policy against what they heard in the past about regime change, axis of evil." No "crazies" here!

Of course, the Obama administration has pointedly renounced the Bush administration's approach. So, if a new, more diplomacy-friendly U.S. president wants greater disclosure of the IAEA's Iran dossier, you'd think Mr. ElBaradei, whose term expires Nov. 30, would oblige. Mr. ElBaradei's good faith will be tested one last time at the upcoming IAEA meetings, and if he wants to leave any sort of legacy, he will tell the board -- and the world -- everything his agency knows.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Donuel
Date: 25 Aug 09 - 12:45 AM

Believe it or not Myanmar may be next. They told our diplomat that they really don't want to pursue nuclear weapons now that they have a reactor thanks to N Korea and Iran.

Yes tom Lehre was right. Don;t worry unless ALABAMA gets the BOMB.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 28 Aug 09 - 07:50 PM

UAE reports ship seizure with NKorea arms for Iran
         

John Heilprin, Associated Press Writer – 10 mins ago

UNITED NATIONS – The United Arab Emirates has seized a cargo ship earlier this month bound for Iran with a cache of banned arms from North Korea, the first such seizure since sanctions against North Korea were ramped up, diplomats and officials told The Associated Press Friday.

The seizure was carried out in accordance with tough new U.N. Security Council sanctions meant to derail North Korea's nuclear weapons program.

Diplomats identified the vessel as a Bahamas-flagged cargo vessel, the ANL Australia, carrying rocket-propelled grenades and other weapons. The diplomats and officials spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity.

The UAE, a hub for Iranian goods, seized the ship several weeks ago. The ship is registered in the Bahamas, a common country of registry for vessels, but it wasn't immediately clear who owns it nor where the owner is based.

"We can confirm that the UAE detained a North Korean vessel containing illicit cargo," a Western diplomat told the AP.

The Security Council's latest resolution came in the wake of North Korea's second nuclear test in May and firing of six short-range rockets.

The ship's seizure and reported violation of a U.N. arms embargo was reported by the UAE in a confidential letter two weeks ago to the council's sanctions committee for North Korea that is comprised of diplomats from all 15 nations on the Security Council and is headed by Turkey's U.N. ambassador, according to diplomats and officials.

The Financial Times first reported the weapons seizure Friday.

The Security Council imposed tough new sanctions on North Korea on June 12, strengthening an arms embargo and authorizing ship searches on the high seas to try to rein in its nuclear program after Pyongyang's second nuclear test on May 25, violating a council resolution adopted after its first nuclear blast in 2006.

The council also ordered an asset freeze and travel ban on companies and individuals involved in the country's nuclear and weapons programs — and last month it put five North Korean officials, four companies and a state agency on the sanctions list. Three other companies were put on the list after Pyongyang launched a rocket on April 5, a move that many saw as a cover for testing long-range missile technology.

The new sanctions resolution also calls on all nations to prevent financial institutions or individuals from providing financing for any activities related to North Korean programs to build nuclear, biological and chemical weapons and ballistic missiles.

Three sets of U.N. sanctions apply to Iran, seeking to halt its uranium enrichment. Iran denies accusations by the U.S. and Western allies that its nuclear program is for more than peaceful purposes.

The incident comes at a delicate time, just as the North has been adopting a more conciliatory stance toward South Korea and the U.S., following months of defiant provocations.

Earlier this month, the North freed two American journalists and a South Korean worker after more than four months of detention and pledged to restart some joint projects.

The North also sent a delegation to Seoul to mourn the death of former South Korean President Kim Dae-jung.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 28 Aug 09 - 09:12 PM

UN: Questions about military aspects on Iran nukes
         

William J. Kole, Associated Press Writer – Fri Aug 28, 3:39 pm ET


VIENNA – Iran is stonewalling the U.N. nuclear watchdog on "possible military dimensions" to its suspect nuclear program, officials said Friday, urging the regime to clarify the mysterious role of a foreign explosives expert and shed light on other issues.

A senior Iranian envoy angrily denounced the assessment as "fabrication," insisting his country has gone out of its way to be transparent and cooperative.

In its latest report, the International Atomic Energy Agency said it has pressed the Islamic Republic to clarify its uranium enrichment activities and reassure the world that it's not trying to build an atomic weapon.

Iran insists its nuclear program is peaceful and geared solely toward generating electricity. The United States and important allies contend the country is covertly trying to build an atomic weapon.

Before six-power talks on Iran on Sept. 2 — and a key meeting of the IAEA's 35-nation board a week after that — the IAEA acknowledged that Iran has been producing nuclear fuel at a slower rate and has allowed U.N. inspectors broader access to its main nuclear complex in the southern city of Natanz and to a reactor in Arak.

But the Vienna-based agency delivered a blunt assessment: "Iran has not suspended its enrichment-related activities."

"There remain a number of outstanding issues which give rise to concerns and which need to be clarified to exclude the existence of possible military dimensions to Iran's nuclear program," said the text, a copy of which was obtained by The Associated Press.

It said the IAEA "does not consider that Iran has adequately addressed the substance of the issues, having focused instead on the style and form ... and providing limited answers and simple denials."

The report contained a reference to a "foreign national with explosives expertise" who apparently assisted the Iranian nuclear program. It did not identify the expert by name or nationality, and officials — pressed by the AP for details — would not elaborate.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 03 Sep 09 - 06:26 PM

N. Korea says it has reached the final phase of uranium enrichment

   
SEOUL, Sept. 4 (Yonhap) -- North Korea said Friday that it has entered a final phase of uranium enrichment, and is also building more nuclear weapons with spent fuel rods extracted from its only op
erating plutonium-producing reactor.




http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/national/2009/09/04/0301000000AEN20090904000700315.HTML

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Sep 09 - 12:17 PM

Iran's Non-Response
Can the Obama administration deliver on the tough sanctions it has been promising?

Friday, September 11, 2009

IRAN HAS finally offered its response to an international call for negotiations on its nuclear program, ahead of a late September deadline set by the Obama administration. But the "package of proposals" Tehran delivered to representatives of the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and Germany on Wednesday did not even address its continuing uranium enrichment, which is bringing it steadily closer to producing nuclear weapons. That should have been no surprise: On Monday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad bluntly reiterated the regime's position that "we will never negotiate" on the issue.

President Obama's offer of direct diplomacy evidently has produced no change in the stance taken by Iran during the George W. Bush administration, when Tehran proposed discussing everything from stability in the Balkans to the development of Latin America with the United States and its allies -- but refused to consider even a temporary shutdown of its centrifuges. Two letters dispatched by the White House to Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, received no meaningful response. While Mr. Ahmadinejad would be happy to share a stage with Mr. Obama -- he proposed a debate before the world's media during his upcoming visit to the United Nations -- he made clear at his latest news conference that his regime is far more concerned with its continuing power struggle with domestic opponents. "From our point of view, Iran's nuclear issue is over," he said.

The Iranian president is almost certainly not staking out a bargaining position. His stance is consistent with the regime's behavior ever since its then-clandestine nuclear program was discovered in 2002 -- and it has been reinforced by the coup that Mr. Ahmadinejad and Mr. Khamenei, have led this summer against the Islamic republic's more moderate elements. Yet the Obama administration persists; the State Department's spokesman said Thursday that "we will be testing [Iran's] willingness to engage in the next few weeks."

There's no reason to publicly rule out talks. But the administration has said all along that it would seek tough sanctions against Iran unless it responded meaningfully to an offer of dialogue. The time has come for it to show whether it can deliver on that promise. Can Russia, which has been the focus of much diplomatic stroking during the past seven months, be persuaded to support measures such as a ban on arms or gasoline sales to Iran? Will European governments, which remain among Iran's largest trading partners, finally curtail exports and investments? Such sanctions might not work; the best hope for stopping Iran's nuclear program lies in the possibility that domestic upheaval will overturn Mr. Khamenei's regime. But, if the Obama administration cannot bring more pressure to bear, it will vindicate Mr. Ahmadinejad's position, which is that "the Iranian nation will never be harmed under any circumstances" for its defiance of the United Nations.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Sep 09 - 01:10 PM

I haven't read the whole article that I found on this subject, but one thing I noticed from the little I did read is that Iran is offering to negotiate on all of the things the West is saying are the reason it doesn't want Iran to enrich uranium. If so, that would eliminate any need (if there ever really was any) for Iran to stop enriching uranium. And if that's the case, then the reasons the West are giving for not wanting Iran to enrich uranium must only be cover stories for some other, unspoken reasons.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 11 Sep 09 - 01:50 PM

So, the Iranians are liars??

"On Monday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad bluntly reiterated the regime's position that "we will never negotiate" on the issue."

Sorry. Iran is acting in a way which may start WW III.

Feel free to justify them, but be willing to accept the 120 to 300 million killed when it happens.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Sep 09 - 02:00 PM

I don't understand the above post. I didn't say Iran was willing to negotiate about enriching uranium.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 11 Sep 09 - 03:29 PM

CarolC: "Iran is offering to negotiate on all of the things the West is saying are the reason it doesn't want Iran to enrich uranium. "


The reason is that it is in violation of the NPT which gave Iran the assistance to get ANY nuclear power. If they refuse to negotiate on it, they remain in violation of the NPT, and thus outside of the family of civilized nations, by violating their international treaties.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Sep 09 - 03:33 PM

Is the above poster suggesting that I said Iran was willing to negotiate about uranium enrichment? Because if they are, they need to read what I said a lot more carefully.

However, Iran has the right under the NPT to enrich uranium, as it do all of the other countries that are signatories to that agreement.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Sep 09 - 04:58 PM

Unless they refuse the continuous monitoring that they stopped. Then they are in violation.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Sep 09 - 05:00 AM

Are they still refusing the monitoring? Or did they just stop if for a limited period of time?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 14 Sep 09 - 08:48 AM

"continuous"

The fact that they refused monitoring means that there is some period of time that they were not monitored, and they have not accounted for all material and operations during that time.

THAT is the violation. They can have monitoring of the KNOWN facilities and still not be in compliance with the NPT- THEY HAVE TO ACCOUNT for what occurred durnig the period of non-monitoring.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 15 Sep 09 - 01:34 PM

US worried about Venezuelan arms buildup
         
Foster Klug, Associated Press Writer – Mon Sep 14, 7:00 pm ET

WASHINGTON – A U.S. official said Monday that Venezuelan arms acquisitions could spark an arms race in Latin America and he also expressed misgivings about the country's possible nuclear ambitions.

State Department spokesman Ian Kelly said U.S. officials were worried about Venezuela's arms buildup, "which we think poses a serious challenge to stability in the Western Hemisphere."

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said Sunday that Russia has opened a $2.2 billion line of credit with which his country could buy weapons. He said Venezuela needed more arms because it felt threatened by Colombia's decision to give U.S. troops greater access to its military bases.

Kelly urged Venezuela to be "very clear about the purposes of these purchases."

Responding to a reporter's question about whether the United States would be worried about nuclear transfers between Iran and Venezuela, Kelly said: "The short answer is, to that, yes, we do have concerns."

Chavez has expressed interest in starting a nuclear energy program. Chavez is a close ally of Iran and defends its nuclear program as being for peaceful purposes, while the United States and other countries accuse Tehran of having a secret nuclear weapons program.

It remains unclear whether Iran could transfer nuclear technology to Venezuela in the future. Russia, for its part, has agreed to help Venezuela establish a nuclear energy program.

"We're going to start working on that with Russia," Chavez said Sunday. "We're not going to make an atomic bomb. ... We're going to develop nuclear energy with peaceful aims as Brazil, Argentina have."

Kelly noted that Venezuela is a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which would restrict any nuclear program to nonmilitary purposes.

"We'll be looking closely at this," Kelly said. He offered no details.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 17 Sep 09 - 01:48 PM

AP NewsBreak: Nuke agency says Iran can make bomb
         
22 mins ago

VIENNA – Experts at the world's top atomic watchdog are in agreement that Tehran has the ability to make a nuclear bomb and is on the way to developing a missile system able to carry an atomic warhead, according to a secret report seen by The Associated Press.

The document drafted by senior officials at the International Atomic Energy Agency is the clearest indication yet that the agency's leaders share Washington's views on Iran's weapon-making capabilities.

It appears to be the so-called "secret annex" on Iran's nuclear program that Washington says is being withheld by the IAEA's chief.

The document says Iran has "sufficient information" to build a bomb. It says Iran is likely to "overcome problems" on developing a delivery system.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardebruce
Date: 18 Sep 09 - 06:41 AM

Iran president says Holocaust "pretext" to form Israel

Fri Sep 18, 2009 5:43am EDT

By Parisa Hafezi

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Friday the Holocaust was a "lie" and a pretext to create a Jewish state that Iranians had a religious duty to confront.

"The pretext (Holocaust) for the creation of the Zionist regime (Israel) is false ... It is a lie based on an unprovable and mythical claim," he told worshippers at Tehran University at the end of an annual anti-Israel "Qods (Jerusalem) Day" rally.

"Confronting the Zionist regime (Israel) is a national and religious duty."

Since coming to power in 2005, Ahmadinejad has provoked international condemnation for saying the Holocaust was a "myth" and calling Israel a "tumor" in the Middle East.

His government held a conference in 2006 questioning the fact that Nazis used gas chambers to kill 6 million Jews in World War Two.

Ahmadinejad's critics say his fiery anti-Western speeches and questioning of the Holocaust have isolated Iran, which is at odds with the West over its disputed nuclear program.

The hardline president, who often rails against Israel and the West, warned leaders of Western-allied Arab and Muslim countries about dealing with Israel.

"This regime (Israel) will not last long. Do not tie your fate to it ... This regime has no future. Its life has come to an end," he said in a speech broadcast live on state radio.

European countries have criticized the hardline president for his views on Israel, which Iran refuses to recognize since its 1979 Islamic revolution.

Israel, the United States and their European allies suspect Iran of trying to use its nuclear program to build an atomic bomb. Tehran insists its nuclear work is aimed at generating electricity.

RIGHTS OF PALESTINIANS

Ahmadinejad said Iran rejected any Middle East peace plan that did not guarantee the rights of the Palestinians.

"The Palestinians should know that they owe everything to their resistance," he said, rejecting any solutions based on compromises.

The hardline leader played down the importance of any protests he may face in New York during his upcoming trip to attend the U.N. General Assembly.

"These futile actions have no political value. The Iranian nation will not blink an eye over your actions," he said to chants of "Death to Israel." Ahmadinejad railed against the United States during his previous appearances at the General Assembly, which takes place at the U.N. headquarters on international territory on the east side of Manhattan.

All world leaders are invited to the annual gathering in September, to the discomfort of the United States which has been forced over the years to allow in foes like Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and Ahmadinejad.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 21 Sep 09 - 02:16 PM

Last Chance for Iran

By Daniel R. Coats, Charles S. Robb and Charles F. Wald
Monday, September 21, 2009

History counsels skepticism toward Iran's newly rediscovered willingness to negotiate. Western diplomats have often walked away from such talks empty-handed. We believe, however, that the Oct. 1 talks present an important opportunity to reveal Tehran's intentions and for President Obama to convince other nations of the need for biting sanctions. They must be taken seriously.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has said that the objective of this latest round of talks should be "to meet and explain to the Iranians, face to face, the choices that Iran has." Tehran has time and again made the same unfortunate choice: to use the promise of diplomatic engagement to delay and discourage international pressure.

We have little time left to expend on Iranian stalling tactics, if that is indeed what this overture is. As we noted in a report for the Bipartisan Policy Center last week, which was based on an in-depth study of Iran's known enrichment capacities and uranium stockpile by a respected nuclear power expert, we believe Iran will be able to produce a nuclear weapon by 2010. Meanwhile, Israel appears ever more determined to conduct a unilateral military strike if necessary.

If diplomacy is to succeed, the United States cannot allow Iran to dictate the terms of engagement. Agreeing on a realistic strategy with our partners is at least as important as what is said around the negotiating table. As we have argued in earlier reports and on this page, successful diplomacy with Iran requires first "laying a strong strategic foundation" of alliance- and leverage-building. So long as Iran has not suspended its enrichment activities, the United States and its partners should limit negotiations to a specific time frame. If credible progress is not made in that time, we must be prepared to walk away from the negotiating table. Otherwise, Tehran will be able to drag out the talks endlessly while its centrifuges continue to spin.

Another key condition for successful negotiations is building leverage on Iran. Ideally, during the Group of 20 summit this week and the time before the talks, there could be a push for expanded sanctions targeted at Iran's financial and energy sectors, as well as at foreign companies that do business with them. By ratcheting up pressure on Iran before we sit down, Western negotiators would gain both sticks (additional measures) and carrots (repealing sanctions) with which to induce Iranian cooperation.

There is, unfortunately, little international appetite for tougher sanctions. French President Nicolas Sarkozy's strong statement on Wednesday notwithstanding, European support is not universal. Also, Russia has rejected sanctions outright, while China is intent on increasing its commercial and energy ties to Iran.

Thus President Obama's primary objective during and after negotiations must be marshaling international support for more robust sanctions. Although the circumstances are not yet clear, we hope that the administration's recent decision to shelve planned missile defense deployments in Poland and the Czech Republic is tied to Russian concessions on Iran; if not, this could significantly undermine our leverage with Russia as well as Iran.

U.S. participation in the October talks will further demonstrate its commitment to diplomacy and build additional global goodwill. If it becomes evident that these talks will end as have all past negotiations -- fruitlessly -- the limitations of engagement, and the need for tougher measures, will be hard to deny. We must not mistake process for progress.

Should the international community fail to support sanctions even in those circumstances, there is still much that United States can do to pressure Tehran. It could conduct overt military preparations, such as sending an additional carrier battle group to the Persian Gulf or holding military exercises in the region. This should demonstrate to Tehran the costs of continued defiance and persuade European leaders that they make armed conflict more likely by refusing to adopt tougher measures.

If all else fails, in early 2010, the White House should elevate consideration of the military option. This need not involve a strike. A naval blockade would help ensure the effectiveness of proposed sanctions, such as an embargo on gasoline imports. Ultimately, though, a U.S.-led military strike is a feasible, albeit risky, option of last resort.

Next month's talks may be one of the last opportunities to diplomatically address the advancing Iranian nuclear threat. If Iran chooses to waste yet another such chance, President Obama will have no choice but to fulfill his February commitment to "use all elements of American power to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon."

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 06:17 AM

Nuclear Debate Brews: Is Iran Designing Warheads?


Published: September 28, 2009
This article is by William J. Broad, Mark Mazzetti and David E. Sanger.

WASHINGTON — When President Obama stood last week with the leaders of Britain and France to denounce Iran's construction of a secret nuclear plant, the Western powers all appeared to be on the same page.

Behind their show of unity about Iran's clandestine efforts to manufacture nuclear fuel, however, is a continuing debate among American, European and Israeli spies about a separate component of Iran's nuclear program: its clandestine efforts to design a nuclear warhead.

The Israelis, who have delivered veiled threats of a military strike, say they believe that Iran has restarted these "weaponization" efforts, which would mark a final step in building a nuclear weapon. The Germans say they believe that the weapons work was never halted. The French have strongly suggested that independent international inspectors have more information about the weapons work than they have made public.

Meanwhile, in closed-door discussions, American spy agencies have stood firm in their conclusion that while Iran may ultimately want a bomb, the country halted work on weapons design in 2003 and probably has not restarted that effort — a judgment first made public in a 2007 National Intelligence Estimate.

The debate, in essence, is a mirror image of the intelligence dispute on the eve of the Iraq war.

This time, United States spy agencies are delivering more cautious assessments about Iran's clandestine programs than their Western European counterparts.

more

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Feb 10 - 12:32 PM

Iran moves closer to nuke warhead capacity
         
George Jahn, Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 32 mins ago

VIENNA – Iran moved closer to being able to produce nuclear warheads Monday with formal notification that it will enrich uranium to higher levels, even while insisting that the move was meant only to provide fuel for its research reactor.

Iranian envoy Ali Asghar Soltanieh told The Associated Press that he informed the International Atomic Energy Agency of the decision to enrich at least some of its low-enriched uranium stockpile to 20 percent, considered the threshold value for highly enriched uranium.

Soltanieh, who represents Iran at the Vienna-based IAEA, also said that the U.N. agency's inspectors now overseeing enrichment to low levels would be able to stay on site to fully monitor the process. And he blamed world powers for Iran's decision, asserting that it was their fault that a plan that foresaw Russian and French involvement in supplying the research reactor had failed.

"Until now, we have not received any response to our positive logical and technical proposal," he said. "We cannot leave hospitals and patients desperately waiting for radio isotopes" being produced at the Tehran reactor and used in cancer treatment, he added.

Western powers blame Iran for rejecting an internationally endorsed plan to take Iranian low enriched uranium, further enriching it and return it in the form of fuel rods for the reactor — and in broader terms for turning down other overtures meant to diminish concerns about its nuclear agenda.

At a news conference with French Defense Minister Herve Morin, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates praised President Barack Obama's attempts to engage the Islamic Republic diplomatically and chided Tehran for not reciprocating.

"No U.S. president has reached out more sincerely, and frankly taken more political risk, in an effort to try to create an opening for engagement for Iran," he said. "All these initiatives have been rejected."

Israel, Iran's most implacable foe, said Iran's enrichment plans are "additional proof of the fact that Iran is ridiculing the entire world."

"The right response is to impose decisive and permanent sanctions on Iran," said Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had already announced Sunday that his country would significantly enrich at least some of the country's stockpile of uranium. Still, Monday's notification to the IAEA was important as formal confirmation of the plan, particularly because of the rash of conflicting signals sent in recent months by Iranian officials on the issue.

Although material for the fissile core of a nuclear warhead must be enriched to a level of 90 percent or more, just getting its stockpile to the 20 percent mark would be a major step for the country's nuclear program. While enriching to 20 percent would take about one year, using up to 2,000 centrifuges at Tehran's underground Natanz facility, any next step — moving from 20 to 90 percent — would take only half a year and between 500-1,000 centrifuges.

Achieving the 20-percent level "would be going most of the rest of the way to weapon-grade uranium," said David Albright, whose Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security tracks suspected proliferators.

Soltanieh declined to say how much of Iran's stockpile — now estimated at 1.8 tons — would be enriched. Nor did he say when the process would begin. Albright said enriching to higher levels could begin within a day — or only in several months, depending on how far technical preparations had progressed.

Apparent technical problems could also slow the process, he said.

Iran's enrichment program "should be like a Christmas tree in full light," he said. "In fact, the lights are flickering."

While Iran would be able to enrich up to 20 percent, it is not considered technically sophisticated enough to turn that material into fuel rods for the Tehran reactor. A senior official from a member nation of the 35-country IAEA board said that issue cast Iran's stated reason for higher enrichment into doubt.

Legal constraints could tie Iran's hands as well. The senior official said he believed Tehran was obligated to notify the agency 60 days in advance of starting to enrich to higher levels.

The official asked for anonymity because he was not authorized to comment on the issue. The IAEA had no immediate comment.

On Sunday, Iranian officials said higher enrichment would start on Tuesday.

The Iranian move came just days after Ahmadinejad appeared to move close to endorsing the original deal, which foresaw Tehran exporting the bulk of its low-enriched uranium to Russia for further enrichment and then conversion for fuel rods for the research reactor.

That plan was welcomed internationally because it would have delayed Iran's ability to make a nuclear weapons by shipping out about 70 percent of its low-enriched uranium stockpile, thereby leaving it with not enough to make a bomb. Tehran denies nuclear weapons ambitions, insisting it needs to enrich to create fuel for an envisaged nuclear reactor network.

The proposal was endorsed by the U.S., Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany — the six powers that originally elicited a tentative approval from Iran in landmark talks last fall. Since then, however, mixed messages from Tehran have infuriated the U.S. and its European allies, who claim Iran is only stalling for time as it attempts to build a nuclear weapon.

Even before Iran's formal notification of the IAEA, some of those nations criticized the plan and suggested it would be met by increased pressure for new penalties on the Islamic Republic.

Iran has defied five U.N. Security Council resolutions — and three sets of U.N. sanctions — aimed at pressuring it to freeze enrichment, and has instead steadily expanded its program.

Iran's enrichment plans "would be a deliberate breach" of the resolutions, the British Foreign Office said. In Berlin, Ulrich Wilhelm, the spokesman for German Chancellor Angela Merkel, said Germany and its allies were watching developments and were prepared to "continue along the path of raising diplomatic pressure."

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Feb 10 - 12:34 PM

Iran plans 10 new enrichment plants in 2010/11
         
CBC.ca Mon Feb 8, 1:52 am ET

TEHRAN (Reuters) – Iran plans to build 10 new uranium enrichment facilities during the next Iranian year, its atomic energy chief was quoted as saying, in comments likely to further raise tension with the West.

The statement by Ali Akbar Salehi on Sunday evening comes after President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad earlier in the day instructed Iran's Atomic Energy Organization to start work on producing higher-grade nuclear fuel for a Tehran reactor.

Iran's announcement raised the stakes in its dispute with the West, but Ahmadinejad said talks were still possible on a nuclear swap offer by world powers designed to allay fears the Islamic Republic is making an atomic bomb.

Salehi, who heads the Atomic Energy Organization, also on Sunday said Iran would start producing uranium enriched to a level of 20 percent on Tuesday, in the presence of inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

He said Iran will formally inform the Vienna-based U.N. agency about the move in a letter on Monday, Iran's Arabic-language television station al Alam reported. He earlier said production would take place at Iran's Natanz site.

But Salehi also suggested production would be halted if Iran received fuel enriched to 20 percent from abroad. Iran has expressed readiness to exchange its low-enriched uranium for higher-grade fuel, but wants amendments to the U.N.-drafted plan.

"Iran would halt its enrichment process for the Tehran research reactor any time it receives the necessary fuel for it," Salehi said.

Iran in November announced plans to build 10 new enrichment plants in a major expansion of its atomic program, but did not specify the timeframe. The West fears Iran's nuclear work is aimed at making bombs. Tehran denies the charge.

"Iran will set up 10 uranium enrichment centers next year," al Alam quoted Salehi as saying. The Iranian year starts on March 21.

Analysts have expressed skepticism whether sanctions-bound Iran, which has problems obtaining materials and components abroad, would be able to equip and operate 10 new plants.

Enriched uranium can be used as fuel for nuclear power plants and, if refined much further, provide material for bombs. Iran currently enriches uranium to a level of 3.5 percent. A nuclear bomb would require 80 percent or more.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Feb 10 - 01:07 PM

Report: Iran disrupting satellite transmissions

JPOST.COM STAFF
12/02/2010 10:34

Several international networks have said that Iran is disrupting their Farsi-language satellite transmissions, Israel Radio reported Friday.

BBC Radio, The Voice of America and the German network Deutsche Welle defined the interference as electronic disturbances from Iran.

The report said that the regime began to disrupt the transmissions on Thursday with the beginning of celebrations on the anniversary of the 1979 Islamic revolution.

The Islamic nation has also been blocking GMail since Thursday.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Feb 10 - 01:02 PM

UN nuke agency worried Iran may be working on arms
      
George Jahn, Associated Press Writer – 15 mins ago

VIENNA – The U.N. nuclear agency on Thursday expressed concern for the first time that Iran may currently be working on ways to turn enriched uranium into a nuclear warhead, instead of having stopped several years ago.

Its report appears to contradict an assessment by Washington that Tehran suspended such activities in 2003. It appears to jibe with the concerns of several U.S. allies that Iran may never have suspended such work.

The U.S. assessment itself may be revised and is currently being looked at again by American intelligence agencies.

In a report prepared for its 35 board nations, the International Atomic Energy Agency also said that Iran managed to make a minute amount of near 20-percent enriched uranium within days of starting production from lower-enriched material. Higher enrichment puts Iran nearer to the capability of making fissile warhead material, should opt to do so.

Iran denies any interest in developing nuclear arms. But the confidential report, made available to The Associated Press, said Iran's resistance to agency attempts to probe for signs of a nuclear cover-up "give rise to concerns about possible military dimensions to Iran's nuclear program."

The language of the report — the first written by Yukiya Amano, who became IAEA head in December — appeared to be more directly critical of Iran's refusal to cooperate with the IAEA than most previous ones under his predecessor, Mohamed ElBaradei.

It strongly suggested that intelligence supplied by the U.S., Israel and other IAEA member states on Iran's attempts to use the cover of a civilian nuclear program to move toward a weapons program was compelling.

"The information available to the agency ... is broadly consistent and credible in terms of the technical detail, the time frame in which the activities were conducted and the people and organizations involved," said the report, prepared for next month's IAEA board meeting.

"Altogether, this raises concerns about the possible existence in Iran of past or current undisclosed activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile," said the report.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Feb 10 - 10:54 AM

AHMADINEJAD: 'YEP, I'M NUCLEAR!'
February 17, 2010


The only man causing President Obama more headaches than Joe Biden these days is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (who, coincidentally, was right after Biden on Obama's short-list for V.P.).

Despite Obama's personal magnetism, the Iranian president persists in moving like gangbusters to build nuclear weapons, leading to Ahmadinejad's announcement last week that Iran is now a "nuclear state."

Gee, that's weird -- because I remember being told in December 2007 that all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies had concluded that Iran had ceased nuclear weapons development as of 2003.

At the time of that leak, many of us recalled that the U.S. has the worst intelligence-gathering operations in the world. The Czechs, the French, the Italians -- even the Iraqis (who were trained by the Soviets) -- all have better intelligence.

Burkina Faso has better intelligence -- and their director of intelligence is a witch doctor. The marketing division of Wal-Mart has more reliable intel than the U.S. government does.

After Watergate, the off-the-charts left-wing Congress gleefully set about dismantling this nation's intelligence operations on the theory that Watergate never would have happened if only there had been no CIA.

Ron Dellums, a typical Democrat of the time, who -- amazingly -- was a member of the House Select Committee on Intelligence and chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, famously declared in 1975: "We should totally dismantle every intelligence agency in this country piece by piece, brick by brick, nail by nail."

And so they did.

So now, our "spies" are prohibited from spying. The only job of a CIA officer these days is to read foreign newspapers and leak classified information to The New York Times. It's like a secret society of newspaper readers. The reason no one at the CIA saw 9/11 coming was that there wasn't anything about it in the Islamabad Post.

(On the plus side, at least we haven't had another break-in at the Watergate.)

CIA agents can't spy because that might require them to break laws in foreign countries. They are perfectly willing to break U.S. laws to leak to The New York Times, but not in order to acquire valuable intelligence.

So it was curious that after months of warnings from the Bush administration in 2007 that Iran was pursuing a nuclear weapons program, a National Intelligence Estimate on Iran was leaked, concluding that Iran had ceased its nuclear weapons program years earlier.

Republicans outside of the administration went ballistic over the suspicious timing and content of the Iran-Is-Peachy report. Even The New York Times, of all places, ran a column by two outside experts on Iran's nuclear programs that ridiculed the NIE's conclusion.

Gary Milhollin of the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control and Valerie Lincy of Iranwatch.org cited Iran's operation of 3,000 gas centrifuges at its plant at Natanz, as well as a heavy-water reactor being built at Arak, neither of which had any peaceful energy purpose. (If only there were something plentiful in Iran that could be used for energy!)

Weirdly, our intelligence agencies missed those nuclear operations. They were too busy reading an article in the Tehran Tattler, "Iran Now Loves Israel."

Ahmadinejad was ecstatic, calling the NIE report "a declaration of the Iranian people's victory against the great powers."

The only people more triumphant than Ahmadinejad about the absurd conclusion of our vaunted "intelligence" agencies were liberals.

In Time magazine, Joe Klein gloated that the Iran report "appeared to shatter the last shreds of credibility of the White House's bomb-Iran brigade -- and especially that of Vice President Dick Cheney."

Liberal columnist Bill Press said, "No matter how badly Bush and Cheney wanted to carpet-bomb Iran, it's clear now that doing so would have been a tragic mistake."

Naturally, the most hysterical response came from MSNBC's Keith Olbermann. After donning his mother's housecoat, undergarments and fuzzy slippers, Keith brandished the NIE report, night after night, demanding that Bush apologize to the Iranians.

"Having accused Iran of doing something it had stopped doing more than four years ago," Olbermann thundered, "instead of apologizing or giving a diplomatic response of any kind, this president of the United States chuckled."

Olbermann ferociously defended innocent-as-a-lamb Mahmoud from aspersions cast by the Bush administration, asking: "Could Mr. Bush make it any more of a mess ... in response to Iran's anger at being in some respects, at least, either overrated or smeared, his response officially chuckling, how is that going to help anything?"

Bush had "smeared" Iran!

Olbermann's Ed McMahon, the ever-obliging Howard Fineman of Newsweek, agreed, saying that the leaked intelligence showed that Bush "has zero credibility."

Olbermann's even creepier sidekick, androgynous Newsweek reporter Richard Wolffe, also agreed, saying American credibility "has suffered another serious blow."

Poor Iran!

Olbermann's most macho guest, Rachel Maddow, demanded to know -- with delightful originality -- "what the president knew and when he knew it." This was on account of Bush's having disparaged the good name of a messianic, Holocaust-denying nutcase, despite the existence of a cheery report on Iran produced by our useless intelligence agencies.

Olbermann, who knows everything that's on the Daily Kos and nothing else, called those who doubted the NIE report "liars" and repeatedly demanded an investigation into when Bush knew about the NIE's laughable report.

Even if you weren't aware that the U.S. has the worst intelligence in the world, and even if you didn't notice that the leak was timed perfectly to embarrass Bush, wouldn't any normal person be suspicious of a report concluding Ahmadinejad was behaving like a prince?

Not liberals. Our intelligence agencies concluded Iran had suspended its nuclear program in 2003, so Bush owed Ahmadinejad an apology.

Feb. 11, 2010: Ahmadinejad announces that Iran is now a nuclear power.

Thanks, liberals!



COPYRIGHT 2010 ANN COULTER

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 12:03 PM

CIA: Iran capable of producing nukesRate this story

Report finds Tehran keeping options

By Bill Gertz

Iran is poised to begin producing nuclear weapons after its uranium program expansion in 2009, even though it has had problems with thousands of its centrifuges, according to a newly released CIA report.

"Iran continues to develop a range of capabilities that could be applied to producing nuclear weapons, if a decision is made to do so," the annual report to Congress states.

A U.S. official involved in countering weapons proliferation said the Iranians are "keeping the door open to the possibility of building a nuclear weapon."

"That's in spite of strong international pressure not to do so, and some difficulties they themselves seem to be having with their nuclear program," the official said. "There are powerful incentives for them to close the door completely, but they are either purposefully ignoring them or are tone deaf. You almost want to shout, 'Tune in Tehran.'"

The CIA report is the latest official study expressing concern over Iran's continuing nuclear activities. The International Atomic Energy Agency on March 3 issued a report warning that continuing nuclear activities in violation of U.N. resolutions raise "concerns about the possible existence in Iran of past or current undisclosed activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile."

The U.S. report was produced by the CIA Weapons Intelligence, Nonproliferation and Arms Control Center, known as WINPAC. It is called the 721 report for the section of a 1997 intelligence authorization law requiring it.

The report also says that North Korea, based on a nuclear test in May 2009, now "has the capability to produce nuclear weapons with a yield of roughly a couple of kilotons TNT equivalent." A kiloton is a measure of a nuclear bomb's power and is equal to 1,000 tons of TNT.

On Iran, the report says that it is "keeping open" its options for building nuclear arms, "though we do not know whether Tehran eventually will decide to produce nuclear weapons."

The report reflects the published conclusion of a controversial 2007 National Intelligence Estimate that stated Iran had halted work on nuclear weapons in 2003. The report, posted on the Office of the Director of National Intelligence Web site, was written before a new National Intelligence Estimate on Iran's nuclear program, which is nearing completion and is expected to revise the earlier estimate, although details have not been disclosed.

According to the report, Iran expanded nuclear infrastructure and uranium enrichment in violation of U.N. Security Council resolutions that since 2006 have called on Tehran to halt the enrichment.

During the first 11 months of last year, the main uranium-enrichment facility at Natanz produced about 1.8 tons of low-enriched uranium hexafluoride, compared with about half a ton the previous year.

The number of centrifuges at Natanz increased from about 5,000 to 8,700 last year, although the number reported to be working is about 3,900, indicating the Iranians are having problems with the machines. The centrifuges enrich uranium gas by spinning it at high speeds.

Last year, Iran disclosed it is building a second gas-centrifuge plant near the city of Qom that will house an estimated 3,000 machines. U.S. officials have said the Qom facility, which was discovered in 2007, is a clear sign Iran's nuclear program is geared toward producing weapons, because the facility is too small for nonmilitary uranium enrichment.

Iran also continued work last year on a heavy water research reactor.

On missiles, the report said Iran is building more short- and medium-range ballistic missiles and stated that "producing more capable medium-range ballistic missiles remains one of its highest priorities."

Three test flights of a new 1,240-mile-range Sejil missile were conducted in 2009, the report said, noting that assistance from China, North Korea and Russia "helped move Iran toward self-sufficiency in the production of ballistic missiles."

The report also said that Iran has the capability of producing both chemical and biological weapons, and Tehran continued to seek dual-use technology for its bioweapons program.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 08:41 PM

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article25118.htm

"Reporting" on Iran Should Seem Familiar

By Glenn Greenwald

March 31, 2010 "Salon" -- Fox News currently has an article at the top of its website that is headlined: "CIA: Iran Moving Closer to Nuclear Weapon." The report, by DOD and State Department correspondent Justin Fishel, begins with this alarming claim:

    A recently published report by the Central Intelligence Agency says Iran is still working on building a nuclear weapon despite some technical setbacks and international resistance -- and the Pentagon say it's still concerned about Iran's ambitions.

But, as blogger George Maschke notes, that statement is categorically false. The actual report, to which the Fox article links and which the DNI was required by Congress to submit, says no such thing. Rather, this is its core finding:


"We continue to assess Iran is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons though we do not know whether Tehran eventually will decide to produce nuclear weapons. Iran continues to develop a range of capabilities that could be applied to producing nuclear weapons, if a decision is made to do so."


The report says the opposite of Fox's statement that "Iran is still working on building a nuclear weapon." And, of course, the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate which concluded that Iran ceased development of its weapons program has never been rescinded, and even the most hawkish anonymous leaks from inside the intelligence community, when bashing the 2007 NIE, merely claim that analysts "now believe that Iran may well have resumed 'research' on nuclear weapons -- theoretical work on how to design and construct a bomb -- but that Tehran is not engaged in 'development' -- actually trying to build a weapon."

This misleading "reporting" is hardly confined to Fox News. Reporting on Obama's efforts to secure international sanctions, Reuters today makes this claim:

    [E]evidence has mounted raising doubts about whether Tehran is telling the truth when it says its nuclear program is only to produce peaceful atomic energy.

    Particularly damning was a report in February from the U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, that said Iran may be working to develop a nuclear-armed missile.

But as Juan Cole correctly notes:

    This Reuters article also misinterprets the stance of the International Atomic Energy Agency of the UN, which continues to certify that none of Iran's nuclear material, being enriched for civilian purposes, has been diverted to military uses. The IAEA has all along said it cannot give 100% assurance that Iran has no weapons program, because it is not being given complete access. But nagging doubt is not the same as an affirmation. We should learn a lesson from the Iraq debacle.

Meanwhile, The New York Times' David Sanger -- who is the Judy Miller of Iran when it comes to hyping the "threat" based overwhelmingly, often exclusively, on anonymous sources -- continues his drum beat this week. In an article co-written with William Broad, Sanger warns -- "based on interviews with officials of several governments and international agencies" ("all" of whom "insisted on anonymity") -- that "international inspectors and Western intelligence agencies say they suspect that Tehran is preparing to build more sites in defiance of United Nations demands." But rather than the secret, nefarious scheme which the NYT depicts this as being, these plans for additional sites were publicly announced -- by the Iranian government itself -- many weeks ago.

As I've noted before, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if Iran wanted a nuclear weapons capability. If anything, it would be irrational for them not to want one. What else would a rational Iranian leader conclude as they look at the U.S. military's having destructively invaded and continuing to occupy two of its neighboring, non-nuclear countries (i.e., being surrounded by an invading American army on both its Eastern and Western borders)? Add to that the fact that barely a day goes by without Western media outlets and various Western elites threatening them with a bombing attack by the U.S. or the Israel (which itself has a huge stockpile of nuclear weapons and categorically refuses any inspections or other monitoring). If our goal were to create a world where Iran was incentivized to obtain nuclear weapons, we couldn't do a better job than we're doing now.

But regardless of one's views on that question, or on the question of what the U.S. should do (if anything) about Iranian proliferation, the first order of business ought to be ensuring that the reporting on which we base our views is accurate. A CNN poll from February found that 59% of Americans favor military action against Iran if negotiations over their nuclear program fail (see questions 31-32) -- and that's without the White House even advocating such a step. As the invasion of Iraq demonstrated, the kind of fear-mongering, reckless, and outright false "reporting" we're seeing already -- and have been seeing for awhile -- over Iran's nuclear program poses a far greater danger to the U.S. than anything Iran could do.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 May 10 - 12:27 PM

Israel says N.Korea shipping WMDs to Syria

AP Tue May 11, 8:43 am ET

JERUSALEM (AFP) – Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman on Tuesday accused nuclear power North Korea of supplying Syria with weapons of mass destruction.

Lieberman's office quoted him as telling Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama at a meeting in Tokyo that such activity threatened to destabilise east Asia as well as the Middle East.

"The cooperation between Syria and North Korea is not focused on economic development and growth but rather on weapons of mass destruction" Lieberman said.

In evidence he cited the December 2009 seizure at Bangkok airport of an illicit North Korean arms shipment which US intelligence said was bound for an unnamed Middle East country.

Lieberman said Syria intended to pass the weapons on to the Lebanese Hezbollah militia and to the Islamic Hamas movement, which rules Gaza and has its political headquarters in Damascus.

"This cooperation endangers stability in both southeast Asia and also in the Middle East and is against all the accepted norms in the international arena," Lieberman was quoted as telling Hatoyama.

Thai officials at the time said that acting on a tipoff from Washington they confiscated about 30 tonnes of missiles, rocket-propelled grenades and other weapons when the North Korean plane landed for refuelling in Bangkok.

Israel has accused North Korea in the past of transferring nuclear technology to Syria, which is technically in a state of war with the neighbouring Jewish state, although the two last fought openly in 1973.

Britain's Sunday Times newspaper reported in 2007 that Israel seized North Korean nuclear material in a commando raid on a secret military site in Syria and then destroyed the site in an air attack.

Syria denied the report.

The communist regime in North Korea has denied collaborating on nuclear activity with Syria, while Israel has maintained an official silence on the reported September 2007 raid and strike.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 May 10 - 12:28 PM

Russia says may build nuclear power plant in Syria

By Denis Dyomkin

DAMASCUS (Reuters) - Russia may help build a nuclear power plant in Syria, Russian Energy Minister Sergei Shmatko told Reuters on Tuesday as the Kremlin moved to strengthen ties with a Soviet-era ally in the Middle East.

On the first state visit to Syria by a Kremlin chief since the Bolshevik Revolution, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev played up prospects for nuclear power cooperation and said Washington should work harder for peace in the Middle East.

"Cooperation on atomic energy could get a second wind," Medvedev said at a news conference with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad after their talks.

Assad said he and Medvedev "talked about oil and gas cooperation, as well as constructing conventional or nuclear powered electricity stations."

Asked whether Russia would build an atomic power plant in Syria, Shmatko told Reuters: "We are studying this question."

Syria is under investigation by the International Atomic Energy Agency for a suspected nuclear site that Israeli warplanes destroyed in 2007. Syria said the site was a conventional military complex.

The nation has been plagued for years with huge electricity shortages, with power generation falling one-third short of demand and the population expanding at 2.5 percent a year.

Israel has opposed Russian arms sales to Syria in the last several years, and nuclear energy cooperation between Damascus and Moscow may anger the Jewish state.

Shmatko said that cooperation with Russia on a possible nuclear plant would require Damascus to abide by the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.


MORE ATOMIC PLANTS IN IRAN?

He also suggested Russia might build more nuclear power reactors in Iran beyond the one it plans to switch on this year near the city of Bushehr despite likely U.S. disapproval.

"We are in favour of continuing cooperation with Iran in the energy sphere to the full extent, including in building light-water reactors," Shmatko told journalists.

Russia says all nations have the right to peaceful nuclear power programmes and is aggressively seeking contracts abroad to build nuclear power plants.

But Medvedev, who has indicated Russia could support new U.N. Security Council sanctions against Iran over its nuclear programme, called for "constructive cooperation with the international community on Iran's part."

The United States and some European countries believe Iran's nuclear programme is a front for an effort to develop atomic weapons. Iran denies it.

Moscow backed Syria through the Arab-Israeli conflict, and the Kremlin is seeking to reinvigorate ties in the Middle East nations. It forgave most of Syria's multi-billion dollar debt.

Russia has also improved ties with Israel and tried to increase its clout to advance the Middle East peace process.

Medvedev repeated Russia's proposal for a Middle East peace conference in Moscow, but he suggested the United States would have to do more if peace efforts are to make headway.

"I agree with my colleague that the American side could take a more active position," Medvedev said at the news conference with Assad.

He said shuttle diplomacy and indirect talks could be helpful.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 May 10 - 12:30 PM

Iran could fire nuclear missile within two years, says think tank

Iran will be able to deploy a missile capable of carrying a one-tonne nuclear warhead within two years, according to a report from a leading security think tank.

By Damien McElroy, Foreign Affairs Correspondent
Published: 6:22PM BST 10 May 2010

The International Institute for Strategic Studies said Iran's missile development programme was expanding in tandem with its drive to acquire an atomic capability.

The Sajjil-2 missile, with a range of 1,400 miles, was test-fired at the end of 2008 and will be ready for deployment in 2012. The weapon relies on solid fuel for propulsion, which means it has a short preparation time and can't be as easily deterred by a pre-emptive strike.

Although the missile is initially likely to carry a conventional warhead, the development of similar missiles in other countries has been closely tied to a nuclear weapons programme.

"Iran is the only country to have developed a missile of this reach without first having developed nuclear weapons," the report said.

The missile would be capable of hitting Israel and parts of southern Europe depending on the size of the warhead. A nuclear device weighting between 750 kilograms and one ton could be placed on the models seen in testing.

Mark Fitzpatrick, a specialist on Iranian security, said the report demonstrated that Iran had devoted substantial resources to ballistic technology and an associated space race, even though its economy was failing. "Iran has been extremely active and increasingly active over the years," he said. "It's very clear that huge investment are being made in both missile technology and the space programme."

Efforts to stop Iran enriching uranium in contravention of nuclear treaties top the global diplomatic agenda and have already seen three rounds of United Nations sanctions imposed.

The report dismissed American fears that Iran was on track to develop an intercontinental missile that would be capable of a range beyond 3,450 miles in the near future. It said the development would not take place in the current decade.

"Logic and the history of Iran's revolutionary missile and space launcher development efforts suggest Tehran would develop and field an intermediate range missile before embarking on a programme to develop an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of reaching the American East coast," it said.

While Iran is developing a large range of missiles and building new launching sites, it has not proven its ability to improve the accuracy of its weapons.

The IISS also warned that the missile programme was fuelling a Middle East arms race.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 May 10 - 12:43 PM

"The report says the opposite of Fox's statement that "Iran is still working on building a nuclear weapon." "


No, it does not. Try reading for comprehension.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 May 10 - 12:42 PM

Diplomats: Iran expands enrichment facility

Posted 4h 55m ago

VIENNA (AP) — Iran has set up new equipment that will allow it to boost its efficiency at enriching uranium at higher levels, diplomats said Friday. The move is likely to give the U.S. more leverage with Russia and China in its push for new U.N. sanctions on Tehran.
Iran's clandestine enrichment activities were discovered eight years ago and have expanded since to encompass thousands of centrifuges churning out material enriched to 3.5%. But despite three sets of Security Council sanctions meant to enforce demands of a freeze, Tehran moved to a new level in February, when it set up a small program to produce material enriched to near 20%.

Tehran denies any interest in developing nuclear arms and says it needs the higher enriched uranium to supply its research reactor with fuel after a U.N.-supported deal to provide the material from abroad fell apart. But the move has increased concerns because it brings the Islamic Republic closer to the ability to produce warhead material.

Uranium at 3.5%, can be used to fuel reactors which is Iran's avowed purpose for enrichment. If enriched to around 95%, however, it can be used in building a nuclear bomb, and at 20%, uranium can be turned into weapons-grade material much more quickly than from lower levels.

The 20-percent uranium is being produced by a "cascade" 164 centrifuges hooked up in series. The diplomats said that Iranian technicians had in recent weeks assembled another 164-centrifuge cascade and the throw of a switch appeared ready to activate it to support the machines already turning out small amounts of near 20-percent uranium.

One of the diplomats, from a member country of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said the new cascade is meant to reprocess the waste produced by the equipment now in operation and produce more enriched material from it.

An IAEA-backed plan that offered nuclear fuel rods for Tehran's research reactor in exchange for most of Iran's stock of lower-level enriched uranium initially raised Western hopes that it could temporarily curb Iran's capacity to make a nuclear bomb.

But it hit a dead end last year after Iran rejected it, though the country's leaders have since tried to keep the offer on the table, proposing variations without accepting the original terms. As the standoff continues, Russia and China two veto-wielding Security Council members normally against sanctions are signaling increased willingness to support a new round of U.N. penalties meant to punish the Iranian government for its nuclear defiance.

At U.N. headquarters on Thursday, U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice said that talks on a U.S.-drafted sanctions resolution are making "good progress."

Diplomats familiar with the negotiations said a draft resolution could be circulated to all Security Council nations permanent members the U.S., Britain, China, France and Russia and 10 elected countries before the end of the month.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 May 10 - 03:46 PM

South Korea: North responsible for torpedo attack on warship


By John Pomfret and Blaine Harden
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, May 18, 2010; 2:47 PM

South Korea will formally blame North Korea on Thursday for launching a torpedo at one of its warships in March, causing an explosion that killed 46 sailors and heightened tensions in one of the world's most perilous regions, U.S. and East Asian officials said.

South Korea reached its conclusion that North Korea was responsible for the attack after investigators from Australia, Britain, Sweden and the United States pieced together portions of the ship at the port of Pyongtaek, 40 miles southwest of Seoul. The Cheonan sank on March 26, following an explosion that rocked the vessel as it sailed in the Yellow Sea off South Korea's west coast.

The officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because South Korea has yet to disclose the findings of the investigation, said that subsequent analysis determined that the torpedo was identical to a North Korean torpedo that had previously been obtained by South Korea.

South Korea's conclusion underscores the continuing threat posed by North Korea and the intractable nature of the dispute between the two Koreas. South Korean President Lee Myung-bak must respond forcefully to the attack, analysts said, but not in a way that would risk further violence from North Korea, whose artillery could -- within minutes -- devastate greater Seoul, which has a population of 20.5 million.

South Korea's report will also present a challenge to China and other nations. China waited almost a month to express its condolences to South Korea for the loss of life, and, analysts and officials said, has seemed at pains to protect North Korea from criticism.

South Korea will request that the U.N. Security Council take up the issue and is looking to tighten sanctions on North Korea, the officials said. The United States has indicated it would support such an action, U.S. officials said. Japanese Foreign Minister Katsuya Okada told his South Korean counterpart on Monday that Japan would do the same, the Japanese news media reported Tuesday.

Another consequence of the report, experts predicted, is that Lee will request that the United States delay for several years a plan to pass operational control of all forces in South Korea from the United States to the South Korean military. Approximately 28,500 U.S. forces are stationed in South Korea.

South Korea's conclusion that North Korea was responsible for the sinking of the Cheonan also means it is unlikely that talks will resume anytime soon over North Korea's nuclear weapons program. North Korea has twice tested what is believed to be a nuclear weapon. China has pushed for an early resumption of those talks, but South Korean officials said they will return to the table only after there is a full accounting for the attack against the Cheonan and a policy response.

The sinking -- and the reluctance of the South to respond with an in-kind attack -- is the latest example of the raw military intimidation that North Korea has practiced for decades. With 1.19 million troops on active duty, the Korean People's Army has positioned about 70 percent of its fighting forces and firepower within 60 miles of the border with the South.


David Straub, a former director of the State Department's Korea desk who is now at Stanford University, said that while the Cheonan's sinking was horrendous, it marked more of a return to "normal" behavior for North Korea than a new direction.

"We tend to look at this as shocking because things have been relatively quiet for a decade or two," he said. But North Korea killed 30 sailors aboard a South Korean warship in the 1970s; in 1983, its agents are believed to have been behind a fatal bombing in Rangoon that narrowly missed then-South Korean President Chun Doo-hwan.

What has changed, Straub said, is the Western view of North Korea. In the past, North Korean misbehavior was often rewarded with Western attention and aid from Japan and South Korea. But after North Korea conducted its second nuclear test in May 2009, "opinion changed in a fundamental way," he said.

"Before there was a tendency of government officials to say, 'Well, maybe if we try hard enough to persuade the North Koreans to give up the bomb, they will,' " he said. "Now the conclusion of most people, including in the Obama administration, is that they can't see the North Koreans giving up their nuclear weapons on terms that would be acceptable to anyone."

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 May 10 - 03:49 PM

Big powers agree on draft Iran sanctions, U.S. says
            

Arshad Mohammed And Phil Stewart – 26 mins ago

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Major powers, including China and Russia, have agreed on a new United Nations sanctions resolution against Iran over its nuclear program, the United States said on Tuesday.

The announcement was a tacit rebuff to a deal brokered by Brazil and Turkey and made public on Monday in which Iran agreed to send some uranium abroad. U.S. officials regard that deal as a maneuver by Iran to delay more U.N. sanctions.

"This announcement is as convincing an answer to the efforts undertaken in Tehran in the last few days as any that we could provide," Clinton added, repeating that Washington has many questions about the fuel swap deal.

The deal had revived the idea of a nuclear fuel swap devised by the United Nations last year with the aim of keeping Tehran's nuclear activities in check.

But Tehran made clear it did not intend to suspend domestic uranium enrichment that Western governments have said appears aimed at giving it the means to make nuclear weapons.

Western nations have reacted skeptically to the deal, although China -- the major power most reluctant to impose more sanctions on Iran -- welcomed it and urged talks with Tehran.

Clinton told lawmakers in Washington: "We have reached agreement on a strong draft with the cooperation of both Russia and China." She gave no details of the draft, but said it would be circulated to the full Security Council later on Tuesday.

She said the agreement was reached among the five permanent Security Council members -- Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States -- and Germany, which have been engaged in talks on ways to address any nuclear threat from Tehran.

The Security Council will hold a closed-door session on Tuesday afternoon to receive the draft, diplomats said, and the United States is looking to get the maximum backing in the 15-member council.

NOT TIME FOR SANCTIONS?

In a sign of the difficulties Washington faces, the foreign minister of non-permanent council member Turkey told Reuters in Istanbul that it was not the time to be discussing sanctions.

"Everybody should understand... that yesterday Iran showed great flexibility which was not expected before, and this flexibility is an opportunity for a new phase of diplomacy," the minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, said in an interview.

Council members Turkey, Brazil and Lebanon have made clear they would have trouble supporting sanctions against Iran. Washington and its European allies say they will work hard to convince Turkey and Brazil to back the resolution.

Lebanon, diplomats say, will likely abstain from a vote on the resolution because the Iranian-backed militant group Hezbollah is in the government.

The United States and its Western allies accuse Iran of using its civilian nuclear program as a cover under which to develop nuclear weapons. Iran denies this, saying its nuclear program is solely to generate electricity.

Western powers have said the fuel swap offer will not be enough to ease their worries and Israel, which regards Iranian nuclear capability as a direct threat, dismissed it.

Iran said it had agreed to transfer 1,200 kg (2,646 lb) of its low-enriched uranium (LEU) to Turkey within a month and in return receive, within a year, 120 kg of 20 percent-enriched uranium for use in a medical research reactor.

Clinton said the deal did not commit Iran to suspend uranium enrichment and could lead to months of negotiations before Iran turned over any of its low enriched uranium. She suggested that it was a ploy to stave off U.N. sanctions.

"The fact that we had Russia on board, we had China on board, and that we were moving early this week, namely today, to share the text of that resolution, put pressure on Iran which they were trying to somehow dissipate," Clinton added.

CHINA MORE UPBEAT ON FUEL SWAP

However, Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi said he was encouraged by the fuel swap deal. His reaction suggested that world powers discussing possible new U.N. sanctions against Iran may part ways on how much weight to give Iran's offer.

"China ... expresses its welcome and appreciation for the diplomatic efforts all parties have made to positively seek an appropriate solution to the Iranian nuclear issue," Yang said, according to the Foreign Ministry website (www.fmprc.gov.cn).

China's stance appeared more in line with Moscow's position that although many questions remained, including whether Iran intended to continue enriching uranium, further consultations were appropriate.

"After this, we need to decide what to do: Are those proposals sufficient or is something else needed? So I think a small pause on this problem would not do any harm," Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said on Monday.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 May 10 - 07:14 PM

NKorea warns of war if punished for ship sinking
            
Jean H. Lee, Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 58 mins ago

SEOUL, South Korea – North Korea, accused of waging the deadliest attack on the South Korean military since the Korean War, flatly denied sinking a warship Thursday and warned that retaliation would mean "all-out war."

Evidence presented Thursday to prove North Korea fired a torpedo that sank a South Korean ship was fabricated by Seoul, North Korean naval spokesman Col. Pak In Ho told broadcaster APTN in an exclusive interview in Pyongyang.

He warned that any move to sanction or strike North Korea would be met with force.

"If (South Korea) tries to deal any retaliation or punishment, or if they try sanctions or a strike on us .... we will answer to this with all-out war," he told APTN.

An international team of civilian and military investigators declared earlier in Seoul that a North Korean submarine fired a homing torpedo at the Cheonan on March 26, ripping the 1,200-ton ship in two.

Fifty-eight sailors were rescued, but 46 died — South Korea's worst military disaster since a truce ended the three-year Korean War in 1953.

President Lee Myung-bak vowed to take "resolute countermeasures" and called an emergency security meeting for Friday.

The White House called the sinking an unacceptable "act of aggression" that violated international law and the 1953 truce. U.S. troops in and around South Korea remained on the same level of alert, said Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

U.S. State Department officials reacted cautiously Thursday, refusing to call the attack an act of war or state-sponsored terror. The Obama administration's tempered response was an indication of how few options President Barack Obama has and how volatile the situation is.

"There's no interest in seeing the Korean peninsula explode," said P.J. Crowley, U.S. State Department spokesman.

Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama declared his support for South Korea, calling North Korea's actions "inexcusable."

However, South Korea's options for retaliation are limited.

The armistice prevents Seoul from waging a unilateral military attack, and South Korea would not risk any retaliation that could lead to war, said North Korea expert Yoo Ho-yeol at Korea University in Seoul.

"That could lead to a completely uncontrollable situation," he said, noting that Seoul and its 10 million residents are within striking range of North Korea's forward-deployed artillery.

South Korea and the U.S., which has 28,500 troops on the peninsula, could hold another round of joint military exercises in a show of force, said Daniel Pinkston, a Seoul-based analyst for the International Crisis Group think tank.

He also said the military will likely improve its early warning surveillance abilities and anti-submarine warfare capabilities to prevent such surprise attacks in the future.

Analysts said Seoul could move to punish North Korea financially, and Foreign Minister Yu Myung-hwan also has said Seoul would consider taking it to the U.N. Security Council. However, the matter did not arise Thursday during a Security Council meeting on Sudan, several ambassadors said afterward.

The impoverished country is already suffering from U.N. sanctions tightened last year in the wake of widely condemned nuclear and missile tests.

Any new Security Council action would require backing from permanent seat holder China, but analyst Koh Yu-hwan at Seoul's Dongguk University said Beijing, North Korea's traditional ally and backer during the Korean War, was unlikely to accept the Cheonan investigation report.

China responded mildly to the report, with Vice Foreign Minister Cui Tiankai calling the sinking "unfortunate" and reiterating the need to maintain peace on the Korean peninsula.

North Korea is accused of waging a slew of attacks on South Korea over the years, including the 1987 downing of a South Korean airliner that killed all 115 people on board. It has never owned up to the attacks, and Seoul has never retaliated militarily.

Since the signing of a nonaggression pact in 1991, clashes between the North and South have focused on the waters off their west coast.

North Korea disputes the maritime border drawn unilaterally by U.N. forces at the close of the Korean War, and the area where the Cheonan sank has been the site of several deadly naval clashes, most recently in November.

Pak, the North Korean naval official, said his country had no reason to sink the Cheonan.

"Our Korean People's Army was not founded for the purpose of attacking others. We have no intention of striking others first," he told APTN. "Why would we attack a ship like the Cheonan, which has no relation with us? We have no need to strike it, and doing so would have no meaning for us."

Investigators from the five-nation team said detailed scientific analysis of the wreckage, as well as fragments recovered from the waters where the Cheonan went down, point to North Korean involvement.

Torpedo fragments found on the seabed "perfectly match" the schematics of a North Korean-made torpedo Pyongyang has tried to sell abroad, chief investigator Yoon Duk-yong said. A serial number on one piece is consistent with markings from a North Korean torpedo that Seoul obtained years earlier, he said.

"The evidence points overwhelmingly to the conclusion that the torpedo was fired by a North Korean submarine," he said. "There is no other plausible explanation."

Pak, the North Korean military official, dismissed it as faked evidence.

"If there were indications that the sinking was our doing, then the whole thing is an act — theatrics by the South Koreans to implicate us," he said.

The colonel spoke to APTN outside another foreign warship: the USS Pueblo, seized by North Korea in a high-seas hijacking in 1968. The American captain and crew were held for 11 months before being freed.

Towed to Pyongyang in 1999, the ship is popular tourist sight, a floating museum moored along the Taedong River that showcases North Korea's naval exploits.

Pak, a 55-year veteran whose uniform was bedecked with medals, said he was among those who helped capture the USS Pueblo more than four decades ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 May 10 - 11:11 AM

Or China?

US warns over Beijing's 'assertiveness'
By Kathrin Hille in Beijing

Published: May 25 2010 17:50 | Last updated: May 25 2010 23:59

The commander of US forces in the Pacific has warned that China's military is more aggressively asserting its territorial claims in regional waters.

Admiral Robert Willard told the Financial Times: "There has been an assertiveness that has been growing over time, particularly in the South China Sea and in the East China Sea."

EDITOR'S CHOICE
China and US seek to strike conciliatory note - May-24US to press China on business - May-20China to hit US chicken with new tariffs - Apr-28Timeline: China-US trade spats - May-18Insight: Other states can fill gap between US and China - Apr-27Opinion: China revaluation will not cure imbalance - Apr-11He said China's extensive claims to islands and waters in the region were "generating increasing concern broadly across the region and require address".

The admiral's remarks follow complaints by Japan in recent weeks about aggressive behaviour from a Chinese coastguard vessel in contested waters and a Chinese military helicopter in international waters.

Some of China's neighbours have been watching the People's Liberation Army's modernisation and efforts at expanding the navy's reach with unease, and defence experts see this expansion as one factor behind a developing arms race in south-east Asia.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0a97c53a-681a-11df-a52f-00144feab49a.html

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Rapparee
Date: 26 May 10 - 12:41 PM

I have deliberately avoided this thread, but I will post some thoughts and then go away again.

In 1966, Kim Il Song announced and began what has since become known (among those who know of it) as the "DMZ War" or the "The Second Korean Conflict." Highlights of this include the Blue House Raid, the capture of USS Pueblo, and the shoot-down of the US EC-121 "spy plane" (oh, go look them up!). Between 1967 and the end of 1969 the DPRK attacked forces of both the Republic of Korea and the US, causing death among both the military and the civilian populations.

Kim Il Song did this "in support of his Socialist brethren" in Vietnam and elsewhere: i.e., the US was focused on Vietnam and he felt it a good time to start a "People's Uprising" in South Korea (it backfired mightily on him). I recommend reading Daniel P. Bolger's "Scenes From An Unfinished War" (Leavenworth Papers No. 19) for a good history of this period.

With the US tied up in Afghanistan, why wouldn't the same thinking apply now? In 1968-69, the US had about 56,000 troops in ROK, now the US has about 28,000 troops there. However, the ROK Army was well-equipped and trained then and is even moreso now.

Military estimates believe that the DPRK could fight a war for about 30 days on the supplies it has; the ROK could last six or more months. The US forces could hold the attack route north of Seoul and the Chorwan Valley until the ROK Army could move.

EVEN WITH NUCLEAR WEAPONS used by the DPRK, perhaps especially so, it would make no difference in the outcome. Russia is no longer the USSR and is very unlikely to get involved on either side; China would lose its trade relationship with its largest trading partner, the US, if it joined with the DPRK -- and these days China is into making money and not exporting "revolution". Should nuclear weapons be used in a Korean fight the world would be appalled and DPRK might well face the prospect of an invasion BY China and Russia from the North because of the destabilization it caused.

I think that if Kim Jong Il did order an attack on the South he would be assassinated by his senior military commanders who actually KNOW the score and do not live in a dream world of iPods and gold-plated pistols.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: gnu
Date: 26 May 10 - 04:04 PM

Succinct and accurate Rap.

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

China May Shield North Korea as Lee, U.S. Seek Action on Ship
By Bloomberg News

May 27 (Bloomberg) -- Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao is likely to resist pressure to acknowledge that North Korea torpedoed a South Korean warship when he flies to Seoul tomorrow to meet South Korean President Lee Myung Bak and Japan's Yukio Hatoyama.

China hasn't followed South Korea, Japan and the U.S. in blaming North Korea for the March 26 sinking of the Cheonan, which killed 46 sailors. Vice Foreign Minister Zhang Zhijun yesterday repeated a call for "restraint" by both sides and said China had no "firsthand information" on the sinking.

China wants to avoid a conflict on the Korean peninsula, and is concerned that taking South Korea's side may provoke North Korea into further escalations and even lead to war, said Shen Dingli, vice dean of the Institute of International Affairs at Shanghai's Fudan University.

"North Korea is dying, and we can make things worse," Shen said. "We have assumed North Korea is not a rational actor."

China has a big stake in stability in Northeast Asia. Japan and South Korea are China's third- and fourth-biggest trading partners after the European Union and the U.S., with combined two-way trade reaching $485.1 billion in 2009, Chinese customs figures show.

China's two-way trade with North Korea, at $2.7 billion last year, is less than 1 percent of that total, even though the two countries share a 1,415-kilometer (880-mile) border and an alliance going back to China's 1950 entry into the Korean War.

"If our region falls into chaos it will undermine the interests of all parties concerned," Zhang said yesterday.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?sid=awElM7vM4Vq4&pid=20601087

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Rapparee
Date: 26 May 10 - 08:20 PM

China will try to restrain DPRK and may even veto US Security Council action. However, a veto would not prevent ROK from acting (as it already has) unilaterally -- and the US would be dragged into any shooting war. The US has in the past prevented ROK from acting against DPRK and indeed talked ROK out of a nuclear weapons program (all US nukes were removed from the Korean pennisula by 1991) by pointing out that ROK was covered by US nukes deliverable by missile and bomber. What the US (and China, Russia, and Japan) fear is a unilateral action by either side in Korea. ROK will probably not attack DPRK, but the same cannot be said of DPRK. A dying regime may want to take whoever it can with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 01 Jun 10 - 12:29 PM

IAEA: Iran has over 2 tons enriched uranium -2 bombs' worth
By ASSOCIATED PRESS
06/01/2010 02:26

VIENNA — Iran has amassed more than two tons of enriched uranium, the International Atomic Energy Agency said Monday in a report that heightened Western concerns about the country preparing to produce a nuclear weapon.

Two tons of uranium would suffice for two nuclear warheads, although Iran says it does not want weapons and is only pursuing civilian nuclear energy.

On enrichment, the report said Iran had now enriched 2,427 kilograms to just over three percent level. That means shipping out 1,200 kilograms (as proposed by the IAEA late in 2009) now would still leave Iran with more than enough material to make a nuclear weapon. That makes the deal brokered by Turkey and Brazil unattractive to the U.S and its allies.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 01 Jun 10 - 12:30 PM

Syria conducted nuclear experiments: IAEA document

May 31 05:45 PM US/Eastern

Syria has told the UN atomic watchdog about past nuclear experiments, but is still refusing to cooperate over allegations that it was building a secret nuclear reactor with North Korea's help, a new report revealed Monday.
In a restricted four-page report obtained by AFP, the International Atomic Energy Agency said that Syria "provided the Agency with information concerning previously unreported uranium conversion and irradiation activities" at a small research reactor in Damascus.

Syria insists the scale of the experiment was small, "involving tens of grammes of nuclear material" and took place in 2004.

A senior diplomat familiar with the IAEA investigation said it was too early to determine whether the experiments were purely of a small scientific nature, as Syria claimed, or part of wider, more extensive research.

At the same time, the IAEA complained that Syria had not cooperated with its investigation into allegations that Damascus had been building an undeclared reactor at a remote desert site called Dair Alzour until it was bombed by Israeli planes in September 2007.

The IAEA has been investigating the allegations since 2008 and has already said that the building bore some of the characteristics of a nuclear facility.

UN inspectors also detected "significant" traces of man-made uranium at that site, as yet unexplained by Damascus.

It has also requested access to three other locations allegedly functionally related to Dair Alzour, but so far to no avail.

"As a consequence, the Agency has not been able to make progress towards resolving the outstanding issues related to those sites," the watchdog said.

"Furthermore, with time, some of the necessary information may deteriorate or be lost entirely."

IAEA chief Yukiya Amano urged Syria "to cooperate with the Agency on these issues in a timely manner."

The report is scheduled to be discussed at a meeting of the IAEA's 35-member board of governors at a meeting next week.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Jun 10 - 01:24 PM

North Korean envoy warns war could erupt soon

By Stephanie Nebehay Stephanie Nebehay – 47 mins ago

GENEVA (Reuters) – A North Korean envoy said on Thursday that war could erupt at any time on the divided Korean peninsula because of tension with Seoul over the sinking of a South Korean warship in March.

"The present situation of the Korean peninsula is so grave that a war may break out any moment," Ri Jang Gon, North Korea's deputy ambassador in Geneva, told the United Nations-sponsored Conference on Disarmament.

North Korea's troops were on "full alert and readiness to promptly react to any retaliation," including the scenario of all-out war, he told the forum.

Ri, departing from his prepared remarks, said that only the conclusion of a peace treaty between the two countries would lead to the "successful denuclearization" of the peninsula. The 1950-53 Korean War ended with an armistice but no formal peace treaty.

Communist North Korea, hit with U.N. sanctions after testing nuclear devices in 2006 and 2009, is still under international pressure to dismantle its nuclear programme.

Ri repeated Pyongyang's assertion that North Korea had nothing to do with the sinking of the Cheonan warship which killed 46 sailors -- the deadliest military incident since the Korean War.

South Korea has accused North Korea of firing a torpedo at the vessel and said it will bring the case to the U.N. Security Council. A report by international investigators last month also accused North Korea of torpedoing the vessel.

Ri accused South Korea of trying to create a shocking incident in order to ignite a campaign against the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK), North Korea's official name.

South Korean ambassador Im Han-taek took the floor at the Geneva forum to voice regret at Ri's remarks, adding: "We believe it is only for propaganda purposes."

U.S. disarmament ambassador Laura Kennedy also rejected Ri's accusations that Washington had backed Seoul in "groundlessly" blaming the sinking on a North Korean submarine.

"I agree that the situation on the Korean peninsula is very grave but I disagree with the statement made and reject those allegations against my country," Kennedy said.

"The investigation carried out was scrupulous and painstaking and we certainly accept without doubt the results which clearly indicated where the blame lay," she added.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Rapparee
Date: 03 Jun 10 - 07:07 PM

DPRK is doing again what has worked for them in the past: tell the world they are blameless and the evil puppet ROK government is acting as its master, the United States, pulls its strings. This is good for internal consumption but doesn't play well in the real world.

The USS George Washington is sailing into the disputed area. This is a BIG aircraft carrier with its accompanying flotilla.

The US currently has no nukes in Korea -- they were removed in, I believe, 1991. It was a funny sitiuation: for example, we has 138 nuclear warheads for the Davy Crockett weapon but no launchers. I suppose we were supposed to throw them.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 01:17 PM

What puzzles me is...why would the North Koreans torpedo and sink a South Korean ship in the first place, when it yields them no significant military or other gain to do so, but only imperils the entire nation?

Why? And if so, whose decision was it....one military officer's on the spot? Or his high command?

And again, why would they do it? What for? What possible good would it do them? Would they endanger their whole country just because they felt like shooting at a South Korean ship because they don't like the South Koreans?

Such things usually happen for a definite reason. It would be pertinent to first investigate what that reason might have been before engaging in further pointless warfare that kills a great many more people on both sides.


****

As for Iran, they have every right to enrich uranium if they want to, and it's frankly no one's business if they do.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 01:25 PM

LH,

"As for Iran, they have every right to enrich uranium if they want to, and it's frankly no one's business if they do."

Not according to the NPT that IRAN is a signatory to.

Of course, it is like Canada still exporting asbestos ( to keep those 1000 miners employed) in violation of international law- as long as no-one does anything to stop it, it will continue.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 03:12 PM

Yes, no doubt regarding the asbestos, BB. That's what big corporations do, they flout the law...and pay off the lawmakers to look the other way.

But Iran has a legal right to enrich uranium for purposes of using its nuclear reactors to generate electrical power. They are not committing an illegality by enriching that uranium.

The USA, however, has committed the open and blatant illegality of fighting 2 undeclared wars of aggression in Iraq and Afghanistan, and has committed further illegalities in covert operations in Iran and elsewhere. It is the USA itself which is guilty of the sort of things it constantly accuses its next target(s) of being guilty of. (the good old imperial recipe for starting a war...)

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 03:24 PM

LH,


"But Iran has a legal right to enrich uranium for purposes of using its nuclear reactors to generate electrical power. They are not committing an illegality by enriching that uranium. "


Not according to the NPT that IRAN is a signatory to.

They have NOT maintained the required monitoring that the IAEC must perform in order to be in compliance with their treaty obligations.

EVEN the UN IAEC has declared them to be in violation.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Jim McLean
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 03:53 PM

My own view is that the frustration in the middle east, will lead to one side dropping the 'Big' bomb on the other ... this cannot be avoided. Israel thinks it is above the law and has the USA on its side while the rest are just pig sick with such arrogance. Who Dares Wins but we all lose.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 03:55 PM

Uh-huh...but it's a political game. Don't you get it that a few major powers control what goes on politically in this world and what goes on in our mass media, BB? And that they manipulate and control feeble organizations like the U.N. for their own purposes? They do this to control strategic resources in the world...namely oil. Iran has a great deal of oil, and it's under Iranian control at present. It is the intention of Britain and America to change that situation. It is the oil they are concerned about, in my opinion, and the nuclear issue is being used as an excuse to pressure Iran...the same tactics used previously on Saddam Hussein. They who have all the WMDs are pretending they're in danger from the guy who has none.

Meanwhile, Israel has a few hundred nukes, and the USA and the UK don't say a thing about it, don't bother Israel at all for it, because Israel is their ally, and is planning to profit directly from participating in their great strategic game against Iran and the rest of the nations in the Middle East.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Rapparee
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 04:59 PM

Israel doesn't have any nuclear weapons. They said so.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 05:14 PM

LH,

1. Israel had nukes BEFORE the NPT- If they signed, it would be as a nuclear power.

2. If there is a nuke used on Israel, there will be NO oil from the Middle East. It will take decades to put out the fires, and much longer to drill in a radioactive environment.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 05:27 PM

Sorry, Rapaire.

Israel has never stated if they have nuclear weapons or not.

The best estimates are 20 to 400, 200 to 500 KT devices.

Enough to ruin the day of anyone who attacks them.



Israel will not allow those who seek to destroy them profit from the attempt.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 07:14 PM

The Israelis are already absolute masters of ruining someone's day in any case, BB. With or without nukes. They have proven that many times over by now.

You are talking like a lawyer, holding up the figleaf of this legal technicality or that one to justify the unjustifiable, but the figleaf has nothing to do with the practical reality, which is that Israel is an unofficial nuclear power, and a major one, and that Israel has been allowed (in fact, enabled) to become that by the USA and the UK, because they share common strategic objectives with Israel. Their common strategic objectives are to control the entire Middle East and Caspian regions, control the marketing of Middle Eastern and Caspian oil, and thus have the power to shut Russia and China out of access to those oil-producing areas.

The various Muslim countries that are suffering the consequences (the collateral damage) are just bit players in this scheme...small pieces to be sacrificed in a very large chess game that involves the real nuclear powers: The USA, China, France, Russia, Israel, and the UK. It also involves Pakistan...but they are another wretched piece to be sacrificed...and it involves India, of course, which will side with anyone who sides against Pakistan and China.

The fearmongering about Iran in the western media is the same propaganda effort as the previous fearmongering against Iraq. It's a trumped-up excuse for war so that the mighty can take a supposed "pre-emptive" action against someone who really presents no significant threat to them, but who is still standing in the way of them achieving total domination over that region.

Yeah, sure anyone who attacks Israel will rue the day. Duh! Tell me something else that's blatantly obvious. Likewise, anyone who attacks the USA, Russia, China or any other major nuclear power will rue the day. EVERYONE will rue such a day. I see no reason why Israel needs people like you to make such dark promises and veiled threats for them.....the whole world already knows how ruthless Israel is, and does not need cheerleaders like yourself to be convinced that they are bloody well dangerous to their neighbours and quite willing to exterminate them at the drop of a hat.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Rapparee
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 07:59 PM

Golly, you mean a country might fib about something?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Jun 10 - 08:19 PM

Disillusioning isn't it, Rapaire? ;-) And here I thought that the bad guys always wore the black hats!

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Jun 10 - 03:37 PM

AP:Sanctions unlikely to stop Iranian nuclear drive
Jun 9 02:18 PM US/Eastern
By GEORGE JAHN
Associated Press Writer

VIENNA (AP) - Washington calls the latest U.N. sanctions on Iran a diplomatic victory, a show of unity by the world's big powers and a powerful way to prevent the country from making nuclear weapons.
Iran says the sanctions are an unfair attempt to keep it from developing a peaceful civilian energy program.

Whatever Iran's ultimate goal, it is clear that, like three previous sets of sanctions, the new measures are unlikely to crimp a nearly mature nuclear program that can be turned to both peaceful purposes and making atomic weapons.

The new sanctions authorize countries to inspect cargo to and from Iran; strengthen an arms embargo by banning transfers of more types of conventional arms and missiles; expand restrictions on Iran's access to nuclear technology; add more institutions to a financial sanctions watch list and urge "vigilance" in doing business with any organization linked to Iran's Revolutionary Guard.

But because many aspects of a civilian nuclear program can also serve military purposes, Iran already has most of what it would need to make a weapon. And the cost of getting China and Russia to approve the new sanctions was the removal of provisions that would have really hurt Iran, such as an embargo on Iranian oil or a ban on gasoline sales.

The International Atomic Energy Agency, in its newest tally last month said Iran was now running nearly 4,000 uranium-enriching centrifuges and had amassed nearly 2.5 tons of low-enriched uranium that can be used for fuel, once Iran's first reactor goes on line, which is planned for some time this year.

That's also enough for two nuclear bombs if enriched to weapons-grade levels. Iran recently began enriching to higher levels for what it says will be research reactor fuel.

The process is turning out less than weapons-grade uranium. If Iran should decide to pursue a weapon, however, it would take less work to turn such higher-enriched feedstock into fissile warhead material.

It will be hard to keep Iran from obtaining more nuclear technology. Many of the companies and entities mentioned in the new sanctions list have already been subject to sanctions and Iran has found ways in the past to circumvent the penalties or create cover companies to procure items on its behalf

"I don't think anybody thinks these particular sanctions are going to trigger Iran to give up its nuclear program," said Sharon Squassoni, a nuclear proliferation expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Secret Iranian nuclear activities were first revealed eight years ago when an Iranian dissident group provided evidence of a nascent government program of uranium enrichment—the technology that can make both nuclear fuel and fissile warhead material.

Iran resisted years of calls to permanently stop enriching, prompting a December 2006 U.N. Security Council resolution that called for member nations to prevent the supply, sale or transfer of all materials and technology that could contribute to Iran's nuclear activities.

It was too late. Building on black market components and know-how, Iran already had most of what it needed to maintain—and expand—its enrichment capacities. And clandestine deliveries of equipment continued despite the sanctions—as reflected in dozens of convictions worldwide of people found guilty of nuclear smuggling to Iran.

Subsequent U.N. resolutions in March 2007 and March 2008 repeated demands that Iran come clean on unexplained aspects of its nuclear program that hardened suspicions it might interested in nuclear arms.

But Iran refused—and continued expanding enrichment.

"Sanctions won't stop Iran from continuing its nuclear, missile and space program. It may create some obstacles but Iran can find ways to go around it," said Abbas Pazooki, an Iranian commentator.

Iran says that despite its oil reserves it needs nuclear energy to guarantee its future economic sustainability.

After the U.N. vote, Iran's U.N. Ambassador Mohammad Khazaee accused the United States, Britain and their allies of abusing the Security Council to attack Iran.

"No amount of pressure and mischief will be able to break our nation's determination to pursue and defend its legal and inalienable rights," Khazaee said.

Western intelligence reports say it is clear that Iran is interested in at least achieving the ability to produce a bomb, even if it has no specific plans to produce it at the moment. The reports from the U.S., Israel, France, Britain and other nations assert that Iran has experimented with most other key aspects of warhead production and delivery.

Gen. James Cartwright, the vice chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Congress recently that if and when Iran decides to build its first bomb, it could amass enough highly enriched uranium to do so in as little as 12 months.

An International Atomic Energy Agency document meant to be read by only a handful of the agency's top officials and leaked to The Associated Press last year expanded on some of that intelligence. It cited Iran experts at the U.N. nuclear monitor as believing that Tehran already has the ability to make a nuclear bomb and worked on developing a missile system that can carry an atomic warhead.

It was the clearest indication yet that those officials share Washington's views on Iran's weapon-making capabilities and missile technology—even if they have not made those views public. And because the agency is generally seen as impartial, the findings added to concerns about Iran's nuclear goals

In that document, IAEA officials assessed that Iran worked on developing a chamber inside a ballistic missile capable of housing a warhead payload "that is quite likely to be nuclear."

_ That Iran engaged in "probable testing" of explosives commonly used to detonate a nuclear warhead—a method known as a "full-scale hemispherical explosively driven shock system."

_ That Iran worked on developing a system "for initiating a hemispherical high explosive charge" of the kind used to help spark a nuclear blast.

Iran did not comment on the report.

Whatever their efficacy, the latest sanctions may serve Iran's leadership in their drive to rally domestic support by depicting international opposition to its nuclear drive as an attack on the country.

"If you think that by making fuss and propaganda you can force us to withdraw you are wrong," Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told a home crowd last month. "The Iranian nation will not withdraw one inch from its stance."

In Vienna, International Atomic Energy Agency officials say that Iran recently served notice that it would further cut back on cooperation with the U.N. nuclear monitor if new sanctions were adopted.

That would reduce the outside world's already narrow window on Iran's nuclear program.

___

Associated Press Vienna Bureau Chief George Jahn has reported on Iran's nuclear program since 2002

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Jun 10 - 06:56 PM

http://www.johnpilger.com/page.asp?partid=578

"On 20 May, South Korea announced that it had 'overwhelming evidence' that one of its warships, the Cheonan, had been sunk by a torpedo fired by a North Korean submarine in March with the loss of 46 sailors. The United States maintains 28,000 troops in South Korea, where popular sentiment has long backed a détente with Pyongyang.

On 26 May, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton flew to Seoul and demanded that the 'international community must respond' to 'North Korea's outrage'. She flew on to Japan, where the new 'threat' from North Korea conveniently eclipsed the briefly independent foreign policy of Japanese prime minister Yukio Hatoyama, elected last year with popular opposition to America's permanent military occupation of Japan. The 'overwhelming evidence' is a torpedo propeller that 'had been corroding at least for several months,' reported the Korea Times. In April, the director of South Korea's national intelligence, Won See-hoon, told a parliamentary committee that there was no evidence linking the sinking of the Cheonan to North Korea. The defence minister agreed. The head of South Korea's military marine operations said, 'No North Korean warships have been detected [in] the waters where the accident took place.' The reference to 'accident' suggests the warship struck a reef and broke in two"

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Rapparee
Date: 09 Jun 10 - 09:58 PM

I understand from Certain Sources I Cannot Disclose that the US has another 28,000 troops on 24-hour standby for deployment to Korea. That's all I can say about that.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Jun 10 - 10:51 AM

CarolC,

"The 'overwhelming evidence' is a torpedo propeller that 'had been corroding at least for several months,' reported the Korea Times."


When was this reported, and from what real source ( information, not the article)? Please provide clicky if you can- this is not in accord with the May 20th report.



"In April, the director of South Korea's national intelligence, Won See-hoon, told a parliamentary committee that there was no evidence linking the sinking of the Cheonan to North Korea. The defence minister agreed. The head of South Korea's military marine operations said, 'No North Korean warships have been detected [in] the waters where the accident took place.' The reference to 'accident' suggests the warship struck a reef and broke in two" "

I believe that April is before May 20th. Please correct me if I am wrong. You do not allow that additional information, not previously known, might be found? And that there would not be an interest in playing down speculation without evidence back in April, to cool things off?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: bobad
Date: 12 Jun 10 - 03:29 PM

Saudi Arabia gives Israel clear skies to attack Iranian nuclear sites


Saudi Arabia has conducted tests to stand down its air defences to enable Israeli jets to make a bombing raid on Iran's nuclear facilities, The Times can reveal.

In the week that the UN Security Council imposed a new round of sanctions on Tehran, defence sources in the Gulf say that Riyadh has agreed to allow Israel to use a narrow corridor of its airspace in the north of the country to shorten the distance for a bombing run on Iran.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article7148555.ece

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Jun 10 - 10:00 PM

http://mostlywater.org/north_korean_ship_sinking_another_false_flag


This page has a link to a pdf of a letter sent to Hilary Clinton by one of the investigators...

http://letsrollforums.com/korean-ship-sinking-definitly-t21375.html?t=21375

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Jun 10 - 08:42 AM

Valid viewpoints, but lacking in evidence.

LOTS of things are POSSIBLE, the point is to determine from the evidence what happened.

No one on Mudcat has EVER disproved the fact that LGM used hyper-gravitic charges to bring down the Twin Towers. So I guess it MUST be true...

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Jun 10 - 06:13 PM

Since it is a possibility that it was a false flag operation, people should be able to see the side presented by those who believe it is. But perhaps you think that only those who present the side that you prefer should be heard from.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Jun 10 - 01:33 AM

Here's more information on the South Korean ship...

http://www.alternet.org/world/147096/did_a_north_korean_torpedo_really_sink_that_south_korean_military_vesselt_?page=1

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Jun 10 - 01:55 AM

http://www.counterpunch.org/amin06092010.html

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Jun 10 - 06:31 AM

feel free to post your opinion articles- just be carefull what you claim to be proven fact, as opposed to belief or possibility.

"North Korea Threatens `All-Out Military Strike' on South's Loudspeakers

By Jungmin Hong - Jun 12, 2010

North Korea warned of an "all-out military strike" to destroy South Korean loudspeakers and other propaganda tools along their fortified border, according to the North's state-run Korean Central News Agency.

South Korea's preparation for psychological warfare, is a "direct declaration of a war" against the North, the general staff of the communist state's military said today in a statement on KCNA. The North's military retaliation may turn Seoul into "a sea of flame," the statement said.

The South has already installed loudspeakers in 11 places along the border and is attempting to set up electronic displays, according to the statement.

South Korea hasn't detected any abnormal activities near the border area with the North, Yonhap News said following the KCNA report today, citing South Korea's Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Tensions have risen on the Korean peninsula since an international panel concluded on May 20 that the North was behind a torpedo attack that sank the Cheonan warship, killing 46 of the South's sailors. South Korea's president Lee Myung Bak has taken the case to the United Nations Security Council, backed by the U.S. and Japan, to seek a resolution condemning North Korea.

The North says the allegations are fabricated and has threatened to retaliate over any punitive action taken against it.

South Korea will resume anti-North broadcasts across the border after the United Nations Security Council makes a determination about the sinking, Yonhap News reported yesterday, citing South Korea's defense minister. "

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Jun 10 - 08:18 AM

Iran 'definitely' building nuclear weapon
June 14, 2010 - 4:47am

(AP) J.J. Green, wtop.com

WASHINGTON - Due to concern over potentially harmful international political implications, U.S. officials will only say they "believe" Iran is engaged in a clandestine program that may yield a nuclear weapon.

However, the men and women working undercover to stop Iran from doing so are willing to say much more.

"There is no doubt Iran is definitely building a nuclear weapon," a senior foreign counterproliferation official with a U.S. ally says in an exclusive interview with WTOP.

"Oh yes, in my opinion it is fact. "We see it every day," the official says.

The Obama administration is clearly concerned.

"The nature and scope of Iran's nuclear program causes the U.S. and the international community to question whether Iran's nuclear intentions are peaceful," says National Security Council spokesman Mike Hammer.

"Iran is pursuing a nuclear program that includes significant capabilities, particularly its uranium enrichment and heavy water reactor capabilities that would provide Iran a nuclear weapons capability," Hammer says, adding that the capabilities "are not inherently capable of supporting Iran's stated objective of a peaceful nuclear power program."

Hammer says the body of evidence against Iran includes belligerent statements from Iranian officials, human intelligence sources and Iran's own military activity.

"Iran is, at a minimum, keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons. Iran also continues to advance its ballistic missile programs throughout the region and to increasingly longer ranges," says Hammer.

Recent reports have emerged that Iranian agents are using the port of Dubai to smuggle sophisticated electronics. The foreign counterproliferaton official says, with certainty, the smuggling operations go well beyond Dubai.

"We have seen them try to use UAE (United Arab Emirates), Hong Kong, Malaysia and Singapore, to name a few other countries."

U.S. counterproliferation agents, while toeing a very thin political line, seem to corroborate the official's statement.

"We see a number a number of trans-shipment points around the world. It is correct to say that Iran does not exclusively use Dubai," says Timothy Gildea, a special agent in the Counterproliferation Investigations Unit of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement department.

"They will evolve their transshipment practices. If one area becomes elevated and law enforcement is focusing on that (area), they will move it (their smuggling operation) around as required to get that equipment to their country," Gildea says.

The most damning allegation comes from the broad selection of items that are being smuggled that list Iran as their final destination.

Clark Settles, chief of the Counter Proliferation Investigations unit, says the variety of items leaves little doubt of Iran's true intentions.

"If they were just acquiring items for uranium enrichment and not a lot of the other items that they've attempted to acquire -- from missile guidance, to triggered spark gaps that are used to detonate nuclear weapons -- if they were just trying acquire one thing and not the other, then argument would hold some water," says Settles.

Counterproliferation experts say Iranian agents' smuggling operations include parties who aren't aware they are doing anything illegal.

But Settles says most of those arrested are very clear about what's going on.

"In an undercover capacity, we act in every role - as the shippers, the freight forwarders, the buyers, the sellers - to really delve into these networks to prove that they are not innocent individuals that are being duped by the Iranians or by somebody else."

"They know exactly what they're doing. They're doing it for profit or they work for those governments or those terrorist groups."

Scores of people arrested on smuggling charges were trying to move dual-use components, which can be used for both peaceful and military purposes. These components are legal to buy and ship to places. Iran is not one of those places.

Mahmoud Yadegari, an Iranian-Canadian citizen who is on trial in Canada for procuring nuclear dual-use components from a U.S. company and attempting to re-export them to Iran, claims he was not deceived into doing it.

Yadegari allegedly purchased pressure transducers, which can be used in gas centrifuge plants - a key link in the process of weaponizing nuclear material.

In 2007, an official U.S. National Intelligence Estimate on Iran's nuclear program suggested the Iranians had suspended its program.

One of the key judgments of the report stated:

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

But the senior foreign counterproliferation official who spoke with WTOP says, "We really have not seen any change in Iranian procurement efforts over the last 5 years."

Settles, with ICE, indicates U.S. law enforcement hasn't seen much of a change either.

"We've played it in out in (U.S.) court and we've caught a significant number of people. When you put the two together, it still appears they have intentions of moving their nuclear weapons program forward," he says.

Another round of sanctions has had little effect on Iran's resolve.

"From right and from left, they adopt sanctions, but for us, they are annoying flies, like a used tissue," said Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad after the sanctions were announced.

The Obama administration has said that "all options are on the table" in order to stop Iran from possessing nuclear weapons.

When asked on The Politics Program with Mark Plotkin whether Israel is planning to stop Iran from developing a bomb, U.S. Ambassador to Israel Michael Oren reiterated the Obama administration's stance.

As intelligence officials struggle to define what Iran is up to, so does a former U.N. weapons inspector.

"I think the evidence that I have seen - and there is no doubt a lot that I have not seen - indicates that (Iran is) taking all the critical steps along the way that they need to get to a weapon, but I do not know whether they have decided to go all the way or stop just short of having deployable weapons," says David Kay.

However, Kay says it may not matter.

"We will soon have to start treating them and reassuring allies as if they had decided to go all the way."

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Jun 10 - 01:19 PM

beardedbruce, you have not posted any proven facts on the subject of the South Korean submarine, either. So maybe you should heed your own words.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Jun 10 - 01:22 PM

CarolC,

I have posted the aarticles stating that the other side disagrees, and calling for an investigation. You have posted blogs saying that since early reports had no evidence, there could never be any conclusions determined.. I am still waiting on whether April is before or after May.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Jun 10 - 01:31 PM

beardedbruce, you apparently can't tell the difference between someone posting links to articles that present another side to a story so that people can see all sides, and a statement of fact by said person.

Perhaps this lack of ability to discern reality is the reason you are unable to determine whether or not April comes before or after May.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Jun 10 - 01:39 PM

You are the one saying that a quote from April means a report in May could not say what it did. And you post blogs, claiming them as proof- they are opinion..

When you realize that your opinion is as valuable ( and not more so) as mine, but that the facts are as determined by evidence, not your desire, the threads will be a lot more informative.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Jun 10 - 01:49 PM

And you post blogs, claiming them as proof

Where did I do this, beardedbruce? Where did I claim them as proof?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Jun 10 - 03:33 PM

Iran says it will build more nuclear reactors
            

Ali Akbar Dareini, Associated Press Writer – Wed Jun 16, 10:11 am ET

TEHRAN, Iran – Iran stepped up its nuclear defiance Wednesday by endorsing plans to boost its uranium enrichment and to build four new facilities for atomic medical research — less than a week after the latest U.N. sanctions.

The series of announcements and sharp comments by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad — who said the West must come to Iran like a "polite child" in any possible nuclear talks — could encourage calls for more economic pressure against the Islamic Republic.

European Union foreign ministers agreed earlier this week to consider tighter sanctions for Iran's refusal to halt uranium enrichment. U.S. lawmakers also could press for additional embargoes after last week's U.N. Security Council sanctions — which were backed by Iranian allies Russia and China.

Ahmadinejad said he will soon announce new conditions for talks with the West. But first, he wants to punish world powers for imposing sanctions on Tehran and added Iran will not make "one iota of concessions."

"You showed bad temper, reneged on your promise and again resorted to devilish manners," he said of the powers that imposed sanctions. "We set conditions (for talks) so that, God willing, you'll be punished a bit and sit at the negotiating table like a polite child," he told a crowd during a visit to the central Iranian town of Shahr-e-Kord. His speech was broadcast live on state TV.

The West and other nations are increasingly worried Iran will eventually develop the capacity for nuclear weapons. Iran insists its nuclear program is only for peaceful energy production and research.

Iran's parliament speaker Ali Larijani said lawmakers back the government's push to enrich uranium at a higher level since earlier this year as a response to "bullying countries."

Iran currently enriches uranium up to 20 percent levels — which is far short the 95 percent plus enriched uranium needed for an atomic weapon, but is a significant advancement from the low-grade uranium at nearly 5 percent level from the early stages of making reactor-ready fuel.

Iran has rebuffed a U.N.-drafted plan to suspend uranium enrichment and swap its stockpiles of low-enriched uranium for fuel rods. An alternative plan backed by Turkey and Brazil includes the uranium-for-rods exchange, but does not mandate a halt to Iran's ability to make its own nuclear fuel.

Iran has justified its decision to go to higher enrichment by saying its needed to create fuel for a research reactor producing medical isotopes.

Iran's nuclear chief said Wednesday there are plans to build four new medical research reactors, including one "more powerful" than the main facility: an aging 5-megawat U.S.-made research reactor operating in Tehran.

Vice President Ali Akbar Salehi was quoted by state TV's web site as saying the new research reactor is for radioactive isotopes for medical needs of patients in Iran and abroad.

"Designing the reactor will be completed by the year end and two years will be needed to construct it. ... Our plan is to build four reactors in four corners of the country so that, given the short life of nuclear medicine, all patients will get the products throughout Iran," the website quoted him as saying.

Salehi also said Iran possesses technology to produce fuel rods for such reactors and the first should be ready sometime next spring.

The announcements reflect Iran's confusing response to the U.N. sanctions.

Ahmadinejad has countered with insults and dismissive remarks, but also claims the door is still open for dialogue on the nuclear standoff. The huge obstacle, however, is that the talks must be on Iran's terms.

Ahmadinejad also attacked the U.S., saying Iran needs to save Americans from "their undemocratic and bullying government." He charged there was no freedom in the U.S. and newspapers in America were not authorized to write against the Zionists or hold rallies against the "crimes" committed by their government.

Ahmadinejad was reacting to an invitation by the European Union foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton to Iran's top nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili to discuss the nuclear issue. At the same time, though, EU foreign ministers agreed Monday to recommend additional sanctions over the nuclear issue.

Larijani, the parliament speaker, also warned that Iran will reciprocate if the U.S. or other countries inspect Iranian planes or ships in line with new sanctions.

"We warn the U.S. and some adventurist countries that should they be tempted to inspect consignment of Iranian planes and ships, they should rest assured that we will reciprocate (by inspecting) their ships in the Persian Gulf and Oman Sea," he said.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Jun 10 - 11:48 AM

Iran bans 2 UN nuclear inspectors from entering
            
Nasser Karimi, Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 55 mins ago

TEHRAN, Iran – Tehran said Monday it had banned two U.N. nuclear inspectors from entering the country because they had leaked "false" information about Iran's disputed nuclear program

The ban is the latest twist in Iran's deepening tussle with the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency and the West over its nuclear program. The United States and its allies warn that Iran's program is geared toward making nuclear weapons.

Tehran denies the charge saying its nuclear activities are only for peaceful purposes like power generation.

The IAEA report in question stated that in January Iran announced it had conducted certain experiments to purify uranium, which could theoretically be used to produce a nuclear warhead. Iran then denied the experiments had taken place a few months later.

When the inspectors in May visited the Jaber Ibn Hayan Multipurpose Research Laboratory in Tehran, where the alleged high temperature pyroprocessing experiments were conducted, they said the equipment involved had been removed.

The Associated Press reported the IAEA's concerns in May, citing unnamed diplomats.

Iran, however, maintained in June there were no experiments related to pyroprocessing and no equipment was removed and has called the IAEA report "false with the purpose of influencing public opinion."

The head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization, Ali Akbar Salehi said on state TV that the IAEA had been informed of the decision to ban the inspectors, whom he did not identify.

"We announced names of two inspectors to the agency last week. Those two now have no right to enter Iran anymore," he said. "What they reported was untrue and they revealed it before it was officially reviewed."

Salehi also said Iran would remain loyal to its international commitments to the agency and the IAEA inspectors would still be able to inspect Iran's nuclear facilities.

Since 2006, after Iran's nuclear dossier was reported to the U.N. Security Council, Iran limited its cooperation to only its obligations under the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty.

The U.N. Security Council slapped a fourth set of sanctions on Iran earlier this month over its nuclear program. The move followed Iran's refusal to halt uranium enrichment, a process which can be used for the production of fuel for power plants as well as material for warheads if enriched to a higher level.

Vienna, meanwhile, Brazil's foreign minister indicated that his country's active support of Iran in its dispute with the West over its nuclear program was being scaled back after the U.N. Security Council's decision earlier this month for new sanctions.

"We will help whenever we can, but of course there is a limit to where we can go," Celso Amorim told reporters on the sidelines of an official visit to Austria.

"If there is renewed interest then we will be able to assist again, if not then we can only wish best of luck" to Iran and its interlocutors in solving their nuclear dispute, he said.

Brazil and Turkey last month brokered an Iranian nuclear fuel-swap deal in hopes that they would at least delay new U.N. sanctions, but the new penalties were imposed nonetheless.

Under the deal — based on elements of an earlier draft — Iran agreed to ship 1,200 kilograms (2,640 pounds) of low-enrich uranium to Turkey, where it would be stored. In exchange, Iran would get fuel rods made from 20-percent enriched uranium; that level of enrichment is high enough for use in research reactors but too low for nuclear weapons.

Among concerns by opponents of the deal is that Iran has continued to churn out low-enriched material and plans to continue running a pilot program of enriching to higher levels, near 20 percent — a level from which it would be easier to move on to creating weapons-grade uranium.

The U.S. and its allies argue that the sanctions are in response to Iran's refusal to freeze all enrichment activities and not in response to Tehran's fuel swap offer.

______

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Jun 10 - 11:52 AM

Gates rules out idea of 'containing' nuclear-armed Iran
            
FOX News Sun Jun 20, 3:58 pm ET

WASHINGTON (AFP) – US Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Sunday refused to address the notion of having to contain a nuclear armed Iran, saying US efforts were aimed at preventing it from acquiring atomic weapons.

"I don't think we're prepared to even talk about containing a nuclear Iran. I think... our view still is we do not accept the idea of Iran having nuclear weapons," he said in an interview with Fox News Sunday.

"And our policies and our efforts are all aimed at preventing that from happening," he said.

Asked whether a military strike against Iran was preferable to it acquiring nuclear weapons, Gates said all options remained on the table but added: "I think we have some time to continue working this problem."

Stepped up economic and diplomatic pressure had "a reasonable chance of getting the Iranian regime finally to come to their senses and realize their security is probably more endangered by going forward," he said.

Gates observed that over the past 18 months support for the regime in Tehran has narrowed, as it has turned toward a military dictatorship in the wake of a disputed presidential election.

"So I think adding economic pressures on top of that, and particularly targeted economic pressures, has real potential," he said.

The UN Security Council slapped a fourth set of sanctions June 10 in an effort to rein in its nuclear program, which the United States and other countries believe is aimed at developing a nuclear weapons capability.

Iran says the program is for peaceful purposes only.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Jun 10 - 11:53 AM

Abnormal radiation detected near Korean border
         
Hyung-jin Kim, Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 27 mins ago

SEOUL, South Korea – Abnormally high radiation levels were detected near the border between the two Koreas days after North Korea claimed to have mastered a complex technology key to manufacturing a hydrogen bomb, Seoul said Monday.

The Science Ministry said its investigation ruled out a nuclear test by North Korea, but failed to determine the source of the radiation. It said there was no evidence of an earthquake, which follows an atomic explosion.

On May 12, North Korea claimed its scientists succeeded in creating a nuclear fusion reaction — a technology necessary to manufacture a hydrogen bomb. In its announcement, the North did not say how it would use the technology, only calling it a "breakthrough toward the development of new energy."

South Korean experts doubted the North actually made such a breakthrough. Scientists around the world have been experimenting with fusion for decades, but it has yet to be developed into a viable energy alternative.

On May 15, however, the atmospheric concentration of xenon — an inert gas released after a nuclear explosion or radioactive leakage from a nuclear power plant — on the South Korean side of their shared border was found to be eight times higher than normal, according to South Korea's Science Ministry.

South Korea subsequently looked for signs of an artificially induced earthquake of a magnitude typically registered during a nuclear test. Experts, however, found no signs of such a quake in North Korea, a ministry statement said.

"We determined that there was no possibility of an underground nuclear test," it said. The ministry said the gas is not harmful.

While any fusion test would have registered seismic activity, according to nuclear expert Whang Joo-ho of South Korea's Kyung Hee University, the presence of xenon could also have come from a leak.

Since the wind was blowing from north to south when the xenon was detected, a Science Ministry official said the gas could not have originated from any nuclear power plants in South Korea.

But the official — speaking on condition of anonymity, citing department policy — said the xenon could have come from Russia or China. Whang agreed, saying a nuclear test or radioactive leakage would be the only reasons that could explain the atmospheric concentration of xenon reported by the ministry.

A Vienna-based United Nations agency, however, said no signs of increased radioactivity were detected last month along the Korean border.

"We have not registered anything that would raise any suspicion," said Kirsten Haupt, a spokeswoman for the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organization, a U.N. agency that looks for signs of nuclear testing worldwide.

Earlier Monday, South Korea's mass-circulation Chosun Ilbo newspaper reported that North Korea may have conducted a small-sized nuclear test, citing the abnormal radioactivity. The paper cited an atomic expert it did not identify.

North Korea — which is believed to have enough weaponized plutonium for at least a half-dozen nuclear weapons — conducted two underground nuclear tests in 2006 and 2009, drawing international condemnation and U.N. sanctions.

The news of the detected radiation comes as tension is running high on the Korean peninsula over the deadly sinking of a South Korean warship blamed on a North Korean torpedo attack. North Korea flatly denies the allegation and has warned any punishment would trigger war, as the U.N. Security Council reviews Seoul's request for action over the sinking.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 25 Jun 10 - 01:48 PM

N Korea seeks $75 trillion in compensation
Updated Fri Jun 25, 2010 8:43am AEST

Cash-strapped North Korea has demanded the United States pay almost $US65 trillion ($75 trillion) in compensation for six decades of hostility.

The official North Korean news agency, KCNA, says the cost of the damage done by the US since the peninsula was divided in 1945 is estimated at $US64.96 trillion.

The compensation call comes on the eve of the 60th anniversary of the start of the 1950-1953 Korean War.

KCNA said the figure includes $US26.1 trillion arising from US "atrocities" which left more than 5 million North Koreans dead, wounded, kidnapped or missing.

The agency also claims 60 years of US sanctions have caused a loss of $US13.7 trillion by 2005, while property losses were estimated at $US16.7 trillion.

The agency said North Koreans have "the justifiable right" to receive the compensation for their blood.

It said the committee's calculation did not include the damage North Korea had suffered from sanctions after its first nuclear test in 2006.

- AFP

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Rapparee
Date: 25 Jun 10 - 08:19 PM

Wasn't it the North Koreans who jumped the 38th parallel on June 25, 1950 and invaded the South? As I remember, the US Army which was in Korea at the time got pushed all the way South to the city of Pusan and damned near out of Korea. Then Dugout Doug Macarthur landed at Inchon, pushed the NK troops back to the Yalu River which invited Red China into the fray (and got Macarthur sacked by Truman). With the help of China, NK troops pushed South again until the war bogged down at the current truce line, where it's pretty much remained for the past sixty years.

This means that if I punch you in the nose and break both your arms, you own me? Huh?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 28 Jun 10 - 03:43 PM

"CIA director Leon Panetta said Sunday that Iran has enough enriched uranium to build two nuclear bombs. In an interview on ABC's This Week, Panetta also said he believed the recent spate of international and US sanctions against Iran will not convince the country to change course on its nuclear program.

"Will it deter them from their ambitions with regards to nuclear capability? Probably not," Panetta said."


from http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0627/report-warships-stationed-iranian-coast/

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Jul 10 - 12:23 PM

Russia says Iran close to nuclear weapons

MOSCOW | Mon Jul 12, 2010 7:27am EDT

MOSCOW July 12 (Reuters) - Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said on Monday that Iran was moving closer to having the potential to create nuclear weapons.

"Iran is moving closer to possessing the potential which in principle could be used for the creation of nuclear weapons," Medvedev told a meeting of ambassadors in Moscow.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Jul 10 - 01:30 PM

Fidel Castro to appear on Cuban television and radio

Credit: Reuters/Alex Castro

HAVANA | Mon Jul 12, 2010 10:25am EDT

HAVANA (Reuters) - Former Cuban leader Fidel Castro, who has lived in seclusion since falling ill four years ago, will appear on Cuban television and radio on Monday evening to discuss his theory that the world is on the verge of nuclear war, the Communist Party newspaper Granma said in its Monday online edition.

The appearance will mark the second time in less than a week that the suddenly resurgent 83-year-old has made a public appearance, after staying out of view, except in occasional photographs and videos, since undergoing emergency intestinal surgery in July 2006.

Last Wednesday, he made a visit to a Havana scientific center that was disclosed in a blog on Saturday.

Castro writes opinion columns, or "Reflections," for Cuba's state-run media that in recent weeks have focused on his prediction that nuclear war will soon break out, sparked by a conflict between the United States and Iran over international sanctions against Iran's nuclear activities.

"The empire is at the point of committing a terrible error that nobody can stop. It advances inexorably toward a sinister fate," he wrote on July 5.

The "empire" is how Castro usually refers to the United States, his bitter foe from the time he took power in Cuba in a 1959 revolution.

In a column published on Sunday night, Castro said the "principal purpose" of his writings has been to "warn international public opinion of what was occurring."

He said he has reached his dire conclusion based in part on "observing what happened, as the political leader that I was during many years, confronting the empire, its blockades and its unspeakable crimes."

The columns have attracted little attention internationally and caused little reaction in Cuba, but Castro promised to continue his lonely fight to warn the world of the coming disaster.

"I don't hesitate in running risks of compromising my modest moral authority," he wrote on Sunday. "I will continue writing 'Reflections' about the topic."

Castro ruled Cuba for 49 years before provisionally ceding power to younger brother Raul Castro following his 2006 surgery.

Citing age and infirmity, he officially resigned in February 2008 and Raul Castro, now 79, was elected president by the National Assembly.

Fidel Castro's reappearance comes as Cuba is preparing to release 52 political prisoners, all jailed in a crackdown on the opposition in 2003 while he was still in power.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Rapparee
Date: 12 Jul 10 - 11:12 PM

Hell's bells, I can make a nuclear bomb. Easier than rebuilding a car engine. All I need is about 10 Kg. of fissionable material (not readily available at my local drugstore) and a damnfool to quickly slam two pieces of the stuff together. Very dirty, low yield (maybe .8 KT*), but it would work. I figured this out in high school.


*Bear in mind that's the equivalent of 800 tons of TNT.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: bobad
Date: 24 Jul 10 - 08:18 AM

North Korea warns of nuclear 'sacred war'

North Korea says it will use its "nuclear deterrent" in response to joint US-South Korean military exercises this weekend.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-10748148

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 12:49 PM

Ex-CIA chief: Strike on Iran seems more likely now
            
Reuters Sun Jul 25, 12:31 pm ET

WASHINGTON – A former CIA director says military action against Iran now seems more likely because no matter what the U.S. does diplomatically, Tehran keeps pushing ahead with its suspected nuclear program.

Michael Hayden, a CIA chief under President George W. Bush, says that during his tenure a strike was "way down the list" of options. But he tells CNN's "State of the Union" that such action now "seems inexorable."

He predicts Iran will build its program to the point where it's just below having an actual weapon. Hayden says that would be as destabilizing to the region as the real thing.

U.S. officials have said military action remains an option if sanctions fail to deter Iran.

Iran says its nuclear work is for peaceful purposes such as power generation.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100725/ap_on_go_ot/us_us_iran

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 12:53 PM

"All I need is about 10 Kg. of fissionable material (not readily available at my local drugstore) and a damnfool to quickly slam two pieces of the stuff together."


Not as hard to get as I would like- Look at the 1946 and 1964 reports, check the alternate fissionable sequences, and make a small breeder reactor- then use chemical separation on the yield for near 100% pure fissionable material. Details will NOT be provided.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 01:00 PM

North Korea Warns of Nuclear Response to Naval Exercises

By Bomi Lim and Bill Varner - Jul 23, 2010

North Korea said it would counter U.S. and South Korean joint naval exercises with "nuclear deterrence" after the Obama administration said the government in Pyongyang shouldn't take any provocative steps.

North Korea will "legitimately counter with their powerful nuclear deterrence the largest-ever nuclear war exercises to be staged by the U.S. and the South Korean puppet forces," the National Defense Commission said, according to the Korean Central News Agency.

The maneuvers, which involve 20 vessels and 200 aircraft from the U.S. and South Korea, pose a threat to the country's sovereignty and security, Ri Tong Il, an official with North Korea's delegation to the Asean Security Forum, told reporters in Hanoi yesterday.

Ri's comments came after North Korean Foreign Minister Pak Ui Chun sat in the same room with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in Hanoi for a security meeting of Asia's largest powers. Clinton condemned North Korea for being "on a campaign of provocative, dangerous behavior," urging Kim Jong Il's regime to change.

Still, the "door remains open for North Korea," Clinton later told reporters. "We are willing to meet with them, willing to negotiate, to move toward normal relations" if North Korea commits itself to giving up its nuclear weapons program, she said.

U.S. State Department spokesman Philip J. Crowley said in Washington yesterday that North Korea "would be better served by reflecting on the current situation, not taking any further aggressive actions or provocative steps."

USS George Washington

The U.S. said this week it will intensify sanctions against North Korea and conduct military exercises with South Korea in waters surrounding the peninsula. The USS George Washington, a nuclear-powered carrier, and three destroyers called into South Korean ports this week in a show of force.

"North Korea may very well go ahead with missile launches or even a third nuclear test to show it won't bend to U.S. pressure," said Yang Moo Jin, a professor at the University of North Korean Studies in Seoul. "North Korea must have sensed that the U.S. and South Korea are after its regime's collapse."

Ri said the George Washington's presence threatened security on the peninsula, which has been divided for more than half a century. Pak maintained the need for a peace treaty to replace a cease-fire, signed in 1953, to guarantee the peninsula's security, Ri said.

"It's no longer the 19th century with gunboat diplomacy," Ri said. "It is a new century and the Asian countries are in need of peace and development."

Cheonan Sinking

An international panel concluded that the March 26 sinking of the corvette Cheonan was caused by a torpedo fired from a North Korean mini-submarine. The United Nations Security Council condemned the attack, which killed 46 sailors, without naming a culprit.

The investigation's results have been "fabricated," Ri said, adding that North Korea wouldn't apologize for the incident as demanded by South Korea.

"If anyone should apologize, it should be South Korea, responsible for driving the situation on the Korean peninsula to the brink of an explosion," Ri said. "We won't tolerate any attempt to put the blame on us."

North Korea's economy has been battered by UN sanctions limiting cross-border financial transactions, imposed after its nuclear tests in 2006 and last year. North Korea is willing to return to the so-called six-party talks on its nuclear weapons program "on an equal footing," Ri said, repeating demands that the sanctions be removed.

Japan Role

The disarmament talks, also involving China, Japan, Russia, South Korea and the U.S., haven't convened since December 2008. All members of that forum attended this week's security meeting in Vietnam.

Japan will send four naval officers to the drills, the government's top spokesman said today.

Four officers of Japan's Maritime Self-Defense Force will board a U.S. ship as observers for the joint military exercise from tomorrow to July 28 in the sea between South Korea and Japan, said Yoshito Sengoku, chief cabinet secretary.

"It's important to promote coordination among Japan, U.S. and South Korea," Sengoku told reporters in Tokyo.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 01:03 PM

Russia attacks Iran's verbal assault on Medvedev


MOSCOW July 26 (Reuters) - Iranian criticism of Russian President Dmitry Medvedev is "unacceptable" and "fruitless, irresponsible rhetoric", the Russian Foreign Ministry said on Monday.

Medvedev told foreign ambassadors on July 12 that Iran was moving closer to the potential to create nuclear weapons.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad reacted harshly last weekend, calling Medvedev's statement "the announcement of a propaganda play, planned to be staged against us by America". He said the Russian leader "has kick-started" this play. (Reporting by Dmitry Solovyov; Editing by David Stamp)

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 01:05 PM

Myanmar Going Nuclear
By RSN Singh

Issue: Vol 24.4 Oct-Dec 2009

There has been an unmistakable spurt in the development and acquisition of nuclear weapon capabilities by the Military Junta regime in Myanmar. Given the level of progress in this regard, it is reckoned by various agencies that this would be realized by the year 2014. The media in the Southeast Asian region is rife with insinuations that this project is in progress, in active collaboration with North Korea under the aegis of China.

The Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) is seized of the matter. Recently at the ASEAN Regional Forum Meet at Phuket in Thailand in July 2009, the US Secretary of State, Ms Hillary Clinton voiced her concern over reports about military cooperation between Myanmar and nuclear armed North Korea. This statement should be viewed in the backdrop of the incident wherein a North Korean 2000-tonne freighter 'Kang Nam-I', allegedly carrying illegal cargo, and headed for Myanmar, was tracked in June 2009 by a US Navy destroyer USS John S McCain and was forced to reverse course, reportedly at the behest of China. UN Resolution 1874 permits North Korean ships suspected of carrying illegal cargo to be searched. North Korea conveyed that any such move would be considered as an 'act of war'.

Since the year 2000, there have been reports about North Korean ships off loading construction and other material at Thilawa port in Myanmar. It is intriguing that these activities were taking place during the period when North Korea and Myanmar did not have diplomatic relationship since 1983, which was restored only in 2007. The relations between the two countries were snapped, following the bombing of Martyr's mausoleum in Yangon by North Korean agents in an attempt to assassinate the visiting South Korean president, Chun Doo-hwan.

Since the restoration of diplomatic relations in 2007, there has been a flurry of secret visits by Myanmar officials to North Korea, which could not have been possible without a reasonable level of engagement and cooperation between the two countries during the so-called 'diplomatic freeze'. No sooner had the diplomatic relations been restored, a Myanmar delegation led by Lt Gen Myint Hlaing, the Chief of Air Defence, followed by another delegation headed by Lt Gen Tin Aye, Chief of the Office of Chief Defense Industries, visited North Korea. The composition of these delegations suggests that besides cooperation for procurement and development of conventional weapons, there are aspirations on Myanmar's part to seek assistance in nuclear weapons and missile technology. If it was only conventional weapons, China is well placed to meet its requirements. As it is Myanmar and China have thriving defence cooperation and more than 70 percent of Myanmar's military arsenal is of Chinese origin. Moreover, North Korea lags far behind China in conventional weapon technologies. But as far as transfer of nuclear and missile technologies is concerned, it has been the wont of China to supply them through their proxies like North Korea so as to deflect international opprobrium. Pakistan is one such glaring example.

Sources have revealed that the Myanmar-North Korea rapprochement was painstakingly brought about by China. It is believed that when the Myanmar authorities approached China for supply of 'howitzer guns', the Chinese authorities expressed their inability on the plea of shortages, but said that the same could be obtained from North Korea in exchange for rice. During that period, North Korea was facing severe food shortages due to drought. At the behest of China, ambassadors of Myanmar and North Korea to Thailand met each other. The desperation on China's part to facilitate the rapprochement process between the two internationally pariah nations, extremely close and beholden to China, is a pointer towards the evolution of a new Chinese strategy in the region.

http://www.indiandefencereview.com/2009/11/myanmar-going-nuclear.html

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Rapparee
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 01:08 PM

Should the DPRK attempt anything -- nuclear or otherwise -- it would cease to exist within 15 days. They know this.

The Democratic People's Republic of Korea: the big-mouth state.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 01:16 PM

Only if they believe that the US would react in that way- it does not matter what we WOULD do, but what they THINK we would do.

With Iran, Afghanistan, and the economy in the mix, who can say what they might do?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Rapparee
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 02:21 PM

They consistently underestimate South Korea and the reactions of Japan, China, and Russia.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 02:59 PM

Which is what scares the HELL out of me!

I expect them to put a nuclear weapon into Japan, and we can TRY to knock it down before it hits- and THEN what do we do???

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Rapparee
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 06:18 PM

We send B-52s from Guam and Okinawa and pound that mountainous country flat with conventional explosives, paving the way for an invasion the ROKs have been wanting for years.

Here's a thought to ponder: the United States talked the ROKs out of continuing to build a nuclear weapon back in the 1980s or so. Why do you have any reason to believe that they stopped?

Japan will not put up with a second round of fission weapons. Neither China nor Russia want the DPRK nuclear weapons used: they'll both stand back and watch the US and the ROKs (and other countries) unite the Korean Pennisula (if THEY don't drop fission weapons).

The hair in the soup is Seoul. It's within artillery range of the DMZ, and the DRPK has a LOT of artillery aimed that way, and that artillery is dug into mountains. The US has the mission of stopping an assault on Seoul through the Chorwin Valley and the Western part of the DMZ. It would be done, but Seoul might well be devastated and literally millions made casualties even if nukes are not used.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Sep 10 - 12:32 PM

UN nuke agency says monitoring of Iran is hampered
            

George Jahn,

Associated Press Writer – 49 mins ago

VIENNA – The U.N. atomic agency says its monitoring of Iran's nuclear activities is being hampered because Tehran objects to giving some agency inspectors access to its program.

The unusual warning is contained in a restricted report on Iran made available to The Associated Press.

It follows Iran's recent decision to strip two experienced inspectors of the right to monitor Tehran's nuclear activities after they reported undeclared nuclear experiments conducted by Tehran. Iran says the reporting by the two was inaccurate but the IAEA stands by their findings.

The report is being circulated to the IAEA's 35-nation board and to the U.N. Security Council. Iran says it wants to enrich to create energy. But enrichment can also create the fissile core of nuclear warheads.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Sep 10 - 12:36 PM

Top Iran cleric rejects Holocaust as 'superstition'
Sep 4 10:19 AM US/Eastern

A senior Iranian cleric, Grand Ayatollah Nasser Makarem Shirazi, dismissed the Nazi Holocaust of Jews during World War II as a new "superstition" for the West, media reported on Saturday.
"The Holocaust is nothing but superstition, but Zionists say that people of the world should be forced to accept this," he was quoted as saying by the state news agency IRNA.

"Americans and Westerners are affected by newly appeared superstitions such as the Holocaust," he said according to ISNA news agency.

"The truth about the Holocaust is not clear, and when the researchers want to examine whether it is true or the Jews have created it to pose as victims, they jail the researchers," said Makarem Shirazi, who is a "marja," or among the highest authorities in Shiite Islam.

Iran's hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has repeatedly branded the Holocaust a "myth" in his frequent anti-Israel diatribes drawing international condemnation, but Iran's prominent clergy have rarely echoed such comments.

Several opposition figures have also rebuked Ahmadinejad over questioning the Holocaust while backing the Palestinian cause.

The comments came after Ahmadinejad dismissed on Friday revived Israeli-Palestinian peace talks as "doomed" to fail and said the people of the Middle East are "capable of removing the Zionist regime" from the world scene.

Iran does not recognise Israel -- the sole if undeclared nuclear-armed state in the Middle East -- which accuses the Islamic republic of seeking nuclear weapons and has never ruled out a military strike to curb its atomic drive.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Sep 10 - 11:55 AM

interesting article...


"Castro's message to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the President of Iran, was not so abstract, however. Over the course of this first, five-hour discussion, Castro repeatedly returned to his excoriation of anti-Semitism. He criticized Ahmadinejad for denying the Holocaust and explained why the Iranian government would better serve the cause of peace by acknowledging the "unique" history of anti-Semitism and trying to understand why Israelis fear for their existence.

...

He said the Iranian government should understand the consequences of theological anti-Semitism. "This went on for maybe two thousand years," he said. "I don't think anyone has been slandered more than the Jews. I would say much more than the Muslims. They have been slandered much more than the Muslims because they are blamed and slandered for everything. No one blames the Muslims for anything." The Iranian government should understand that the Jews "were expelled from their land, persecuted and mistreated all over the world, as the ones who killed God. In my judgment here's what happened to them: Reverse selection. What's reverse selection? Over 2,000 years they were subjected to terrible persecution and then to the pogroms. One might have assumed that they would have disappeared; I think their culture and religion kept them together as a nation." He continued: "The Jews have lived an existence that is much harder than ours. There is nothing that compares to the Holocaust." I asked him if he would tell Ahmadinejad what he was telling me. "I am saying this so you can communicate it," he answered."

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 12:21 PM

North and South Korea on the brink of war, Russian diplomat warns

North and South Korea are on the brink of war, a top Russian diplomat has warned, calling for both countries to exercise restraint and sit down for talks.

By Andrew Osborn in Moscow
Published: 12:04AM BST 24 Sep 2010

In Moscow's bleakest assessment of the situation on the Korean peninsula yet, Russian deputy foreign minister Alexei Borodavkin said tensions between the two countries were running at their highest and most dangerous level in a decade.

"Tensions on the Korean Peninsula could not be any higher. The only next step is a conflict," he told foreign policy experts at a round table on the subject in Moscow.

UN Security Council toughens sanctions against North Korea
Kim Jong-il is a headache, but not a nightmareHis prediction came two months after North Korea vowed to wage "a sacred war" against South Korea and its biggest backer, the United States.

Tensions bubbled over in March after Washington and Seoul concluded that a North Korean submarine had sunk a South Korean naval vessel in the Yellow Sea. Mr Borodavkin called for the investigation into exactly who was responsible for the sinking of the vessel, the Cheonan, to be urgently closed in order to remove an obvious source of tension.

Describing the standoff between the two Koreas as a "hangover from the Cold War," Mr Borodavkin said Russia, which is one of the six countries involved in talks with North Korea over its nuclear programme, was doing all it could to try to prevent an outbreak of hostilities.

But he said responsibility for keeping peace in the volatile region was shared equally between North and South Korea. He condemned North Korea's nuclear testing programme but also criticised the way the United States and South Korea had increased their military manoeuvres in the wake of the sinking of the Cheonan.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/northkorea/8020972/North-and-South-Korea-on-the-brink-of-war-Russian-diplomat-war

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 02:43 PM

Probably some people or groups of people here, who don't agree with the government's policies.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Rapparee
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 10:12 PM

They still ARE at war. The one started in 1950 never ended; a truce was called. The truce has been violated, over and over, by both sides but mainly by the DPRK. I truly doubt that DPRK could get support from either China or Russia should they decide to jump the Z, and the generals know it. Should Kim decide to move to open attack he might find himself assassinated by his generals, who seem to live in the real world instead of Kimilsongland.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: bobad
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 10:26 PM

Good analysis Rap, I hope you are right.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 25 Sep 10 - 05:40 AM

haven't been following this thread much, so sorry if this has been pointed out.

Given a choice, North Korea.

Bomb Iran and you upset lots of people in lots of countries due to our old friend religion. Bomb North Korea and who else gets upset? err... not even the Chinese who are fed up of propping them up.

Hopefully the above ironic comments are taken that way, as I hope the original post was ironic, but amazing how many people, especially in The United Confederate States of Dumbfuckistan actually think this as more than an academic question....

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Oct 10 - 12:29 PM

Afghan Police Seize 22 Tons Of Explosives From Iran

Updated: Wednesday, 06 Oct 2010, 9:03 AM EDT
Published : Wednesday, 06 Oct 2010, 8:18 AM EDT

AFP - Afghan police said Wednesday they had seized 22 tons of explosives stashed in boxes marked "food, toys and kitchenware" that were imported from neighboring Iran.

The discovery was made Tuesday in a customs office in the western province of Nimroz on the Iranian border, deputy provincial police chief Mohammad Musa Rasouli said.

"We found these materials hidden in a 40 foot shipping container that had come from Iran. The explosives were disguised as merchandise like food, toys and kitchenware," he added.

Bombs made from old ammunitions and explosives are the main weapon used by the Taliban and other insurgents fighting against the Western-backed Afghan government and Western troops, and cause the bulk of military casualties.

Foreign military commanders and some Afghan officials have accused Iran of providing weapons to the Taliban, the chief group leading the insurgency since the 2001 U.S.-led invasion ousted its regime from power.

Tehran, a long-running U.S. foe, denies the charges and senior Afghan administration officials say they have no evidence against Iran.

The U.S. and NATO have more than 150,000 troops in Afghanistan to fight the Taliban and keep President Hamid Karzai's administration in power.

Copyright 2010 AFP. All rights reserved.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Nov 10 - 11:53 AM

Security Council Gets North Korea Nuke Report

Published November 10, 2010
| FoxNews.com

UNITED NATIONS -- A report by U.N. experts saying North Korea is exporting banned nuclear and missile technology to Iran, Syria and Myanmar has been sent to the Security Council after China dropped its objections, U.N. diplomats said Wednesday.

The panel's report was submitted to the Security Council committee monitoring sanctions against Pyongyang in early May but China, a close ally of North Korea, blocked its transmission to the full 15-member council, diplomats said, speaking on condition of anonymity because consultations have been private.

The experts said North Korea is exporting nuclear and ballistic missile technology and using multiple intermediaries, shell companies and overseas criminal networks to circumvent U.N. sanctions. It called for further study of these suspected activities and urged all countries to try to prevent them.

"The Panel of Experts has reviewed several government assessments, reporters of the International Atomic Energy Agency, research papers and media reports indicting continuing involvement of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea in nuclear and ballistic missile-related activities in certain countries, including the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Syrian Arab Republic and Myanmar (Burma)."

The report goes on to expose how North Korea engages in "the use of multiple layers of intermediaries, shell companies and financial institutions" to "circumvent" U.N. sanctions.

In particular, the report identifies a network of "trade offices" that engage in "handling its illicit trade and covert acquisitions," including establishing "links with overseas criminal networks to carry out these activities," which also may "include weapons of mass destruction-sensitive goods and arms and related materiel smuggling."

Perhaps the most damning finding is that North Korea "has continued to provide missiles, components and technology to certain countries, including the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Syrian Arab Republic, "and that North Korea "has proved assistance for a nuclear program in the Syrian Arab Republic."

The 47-page report and a 23-page annex document sanctions violations reported by U.N. member states, including four cases involving arms exports and two seizures of luxury goods by Italy -- two yachts and high-end recording and video equipment. The report also details the broad range of techniques that North Korea is using to try to evade sanctions imposed by the U.N. Security Council after its two nuclear tests in 2006 and 2009.

U.S. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a Florida Republican, said in a statement Wednesday that the report "should be a wake-up call for the U.S. and other responsible nations."

"Instead of continuing its failed strategy of seeking to engage the regime in endless negotiation, the administration must ratchet up pressure on Pyongyang," she said.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Dec 10 - 04:53 PM

Iran Placing Medium-Range Missiles in Venezuela; Can Reach the U.S.
by Anna Mahjar-Barducci
December 8, 2010 at 5:00 am

http://www.hudson-ny.org/1714/iran-missiles-in-venezuela


Iran is planning to place medium-range missiles on Venezuelan soil, based on western information sources[1], according to an article in the German daily, Die Welt, of November 25, 2010. According to the article, an agreement between the two countries was signed during the last visit o Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez to Tehran on October19, 2010. The previously undisclosed contract provides for the establishment of a jointly operated military base in Venezuela, and the joint development of ground-to-ground missiles.

At a moment when NATO members found an agreement, in the recent Lisbon summit (19-20 November 2010), to develop a Missile Defence capability to protect NATO's populations and territories in Europe against ballistic missile attacks from the East (namely, Iran), Iran's counter-move consists in establishing a strategic base in the South American continent - in the United States's soft underbelly.

According to Die Welt, Venezuela has agreed to allow Iran to establish a military base manned by Iranian missile officers, soldiers of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and Venezuelan missile officers. In addition, Iran has given permission for the missiles to be used in case of an "emergency". In return, the agreement states that Venezuela can use these facilities for "national needs" – radically increasing the threat to neighbors like Colombia. The German daily claims that according to the agreement, Iranian Shahab 3 (range 1300-1500 km), Scud-B (285-330 km) and Scud-C (300, 500 and 700 km) will be deployed in the proposed base. It says that Iran also pledged to help Venezuela in rocket technology expertise, including intensive training of officers

Venezuela has also become the country through which Iran intends to bypass UN sanctions. Following a new round of UN sanctions against the Islamic Republic, for example, Russia decided not to sell five battalions of S-300PMU-1 air defence systems to Iran. These weapons, along with a number of other weapons, were part of a deal, signed in 2007, worth $800 million. Now that these weapons cannot be delivered to Iran, Russia is looking for new customers; according to the Russian press agency Novosti[2], it found one: Venezuela.

Novosti reports the words of Igor Korotchenko, head of a Moscow-based think tank on international arms trade, saying that if the S-300 deal with Venezuela goes through, Caracas should pay cash for the missiles, rather than take another loan from Russia. "The S-300 is a very good product and Venezuela should pay the full amount in cash, as the country's budget has enough funds to cover the deal ," Korotchenko said. Moscow has already provided Caracas with several loans to buy Russian-made weaponry, including a recent $2.2-mln loan on the purchase of 92 T-72M1M tanks, the Smerch multiple-launch rocket systems and other military equipment.

If Iran, therefore, cannot get the S-300 missiles directly from Russia, it can still have them through its proxy, Venezuela, and deploy them against its staunchest enemy, the U.S..

But that is not all. According to Reuters, Iran has developed a version of the Russian S-300 missile and will test-fire it soon, as declared by the official news agency IRNA, two months after Moscow cancelled the delivery to comply with United Nations sanctions[3]. Iran, in fact, has its own capabilities for constructing missiles that could carry atomic warheads. According to a study recently released by the International Institute of Strategic Studies in London, Iran is presently aiming to perfect the already existing solid-fuel, medium-range missile that can carry a nuke to hit regional targets, such as Israel[4]. If a missile base can be opened in Venezuela, many US cities will be able to be reached from there even with short-medium range missiles.

The situation that is unfolding in Venezuela has some resemblance to the Cuba crisis of 1962. At that time, Cuba was acting on behalf of the USSR; now Venezuela is acting on behalf of Iran. At present, the geopolitical situation is very different: the world is no longer ruled by two superpowers; new nations, often with questionable leaders and the ambition of acquiring global status, are appearing on the international scene. Their danger to the free world will be greater if the process of nuclear proliferation is not stopped. Among the nations that aspire to become world powers, Iran has certainly the best capabilities of posing a challenge to the West.

Back in the 1962, thanks to the stern stance adopted by the then Kennedy administration, the crisis was defused

Nowadays, however, we do not see the same firmness from the present administration. On the contrary, we see a lax attitude, both in language and in deeds, that results in extending hands when our adversaries have no intention of shaking hands with us. Iran is soon going to have a nuclear weapon, and there are no signs that UN sanctions will in any way deter the Ayatollah's regime from completing its nuclear program. We know that Iran already has missiles that can carry an atomic warhead over Israel and over the Arabian Peninsula. Now we learn that Iran is planning to build a missile base close to the US borders. How longer do we have to wait before the Obama administration begins to understand threats?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Dec 10 - 06:44 PM

N.Korea 'will rely on nuclear might for defence'

Dec 10 07:49 AM US/Eastern

Pyongyang will rely on nuclear might to defend itself against the United States and South Korea, North Korea's Foreign Minister Pak Ui Chun told Russia's Interfax news agency Friday.

"We are once again assured of the rectitude of our choice of the songun (army first) policy, and in strengthening a defence that relies on nuclear forces for deterrence," he said.

Moments after his comments, the Russian foreign ministry issued a statement stating that "all sides must avoid taking any actions that can escalate the situation."

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp
Date: 25 Apr 11 - 06:26 PM

You remind me of the guy who stumbled into Al Capone's club one night and said, "Anyone here got change for a $20?" Poor sap had no idea what he was walkin' into...

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Sep 11 - 04:18 PM

VIENNA (AP) -- The U.N. nuclear agency said Wednesday it is "increasingly concerned" about a stream of intelligence suggesting that Iran continues to work secretly on developing a nuclear payload for a missile and other components of a nuclear weapons program.

In its report, the International Atomic Energy Agency said "many member states" are providing evidence for that assessment, describing the information it is receiving as credible, "extensive and comprehensive."

The restricted 9-page report was made available Friday to The Associated Press, shortly after being shared internally with the 35 IAEA member nations and the U.N. Security Council. It also said Tehran has fulfilled a pledged made earlier this year and started installing equipment to enrich uranium at a new location - an underground bunker that is better protected from air attack than its present enrichment facilities.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IRAN_NUCLEAR?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Sep 11 - 06:07 PM

1200

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 02 Nov 11 - 12:31 PM

"A report by the UN's nuclear watchdog due to be circulated around the world next week will provide fresh evidence of a possible Iranian nuclear weapons programme, bringing the Middle East a step closer to a devastating new conflict, say diplomats.

The report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is the latest of a series of quarterly bulletins on Iran's activities, but this one will contain an unprecedented level of detail on research and experiments carried out in Iran in recent years, which western officials allege could only be for the design and development of a nuclear warhead. "This will be a game-changer in the Iranian nuclear dossier," a western official predicted. "It is going to be hard for even Moscow or Beijing to downplay its significance."

The key passage of the "safeguards report" will be a summary of all the evidence collected over the years by UN weapons inspectors, including a substantial amount of hitherto unpublished data pointing to work in the past seven years."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/02/iran-nuclear-weapons-programme

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 02 Nov 11 - 12:32 PM

btw,

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Mar 09 - 12:20 PM

On the subject of Iran and its nuclear program, all arguments will probably become irrelevant soon, as President Obama continues his diplomatic efforts there. The Iranians offered to negotiate unconditionally with the US government when Bush was president. This was shortly after Iran was indispensable in helping the US with its war against the Taliban. In return for its efforts, and in response to their offer to negotiate, the Bush administration labeled Iran a part of the "Axis of Evil". Unlike Bush, Obama doesn't have an agenda to overturn the government of Iran for hegemonic reasons, so he will succeed in working out an acceptable agreement with the government of Iran.



Yet another example of a statement without any factual basis.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Nov 11 - 07:45 AM

"CHINA-IRAN MISSILE SALES

China is continuing to provide advanced missiles and other conventional arms to Iran and may be doing so in violation of U.N. sanctions against the Tehran regime, according to a draft report by the congressional U.S.-China Commission.

"China continues to provide Iran with what could be considered advanced conventional weapons," the report of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission says.

According to the report, which will be made public Nov. 16, China sold $312 million worth of arms to Iran, second only to Russia, after Congress passed the Iran Freedom Support Act in 2006 that allows the U.S. government to sanction foreign companies that provide advanced arms to Iran.

The report also noted that, after Russia began cutting back arms transfers to Iran in 2008, China became the largest arms supplier to the Iranian military.

Most of the weapons transfers involved sales of Chinese anti-ship cruise missiles, including C-802 missiles that China promised the United States in 1997 would not be exported to Iran.

China also built an entire missile plant in Iran last year to produce the Nasr-1 anti-ship cruise missile.

"Because of the relatively short range of these missiles, China's provision of them to Iran does not violate the Iran, North Korea and Syria Nonproliferation Act of 2006, which seeks to prevent the transfer of only those missiles that can carry a 500-kilogram warhead more than 300 kilometers," the report says.

"It is possible, however, that these transactions violate the Iran Freedom Support Act, or the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability and Divestment Act of 2010, which both use the ambiguous term 'advanced conventional weapons.' ""


http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/nov/2/inside-the-ring-308062640/?page=all#pagebreak

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 07 Nov 11 - 09:59 AM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/iaea-says-foreign-expertise-has-brought-iran-to-threshold-of-nuclear-capab

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 08 Nov 11 - 03:29 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/iran-worked-nuclear-bomb-design-iaea-181625019.html

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Nov 11 - 05:09 PM

Who's next? Iran is the likliest candidate. The USA has them pretty much surrounded with military units based in Afghanistan, Iraq, the Persian Gulf, Saudi Arabia, and the Gulf States. Israel keeps making noises about pre-emptively striking Iran, this supposedly being a moral and responsible thing to do....just the kind of reasoning fascists usually use to justify attacking someone else first..."Oh, we're doing it because they plan to attack us someday, and they're also, you know, very, very evil people, almost subhuman, in fact...so we're doing it to protect the whole world, don't you know?"

Ha. Ha.

Plus, I notice that the mainstream media are getting regular stories now about what an incredible threat Iran poses to the world IF they should ever get any nuclear weapons! OOOOOOOooooo...scary! Scary! Does this remind anyone of the scare program mounted by Bush I to justify invading Iraq? If not, people have amazingly short memories.

Meanwhile, Israel's got several hundred unofficial nukes set to fire anytime they want to, everyone knows it, and they hold the entire Middle East in the grip of mortal terror under their righteous nuclear Sword of Damocles. Kind of like... Jericho. Sodom. Gomorrah. All waiting to be wiped off the face of the Earth again by "God's Chosen", so that "God's Chosen" can have "The Promised Land" all to themselves.

Nice people. Uh-huh.

(I know we will disagree about that, BB. That's okay. I can disagree with you about politics and still like you fine as another human being who wants the same things I do: peace, justice, freedom, and happiness for everyone.)

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: bobad
Date: 08 Nov 11 - 05:22 PM

"Doubting the military option isn't about a squishy, woolly-minded morality over the right of Israel to deny Iran the nuclear arms that Israel already has. Iran is a religious autocracy whose delusional president denies the Holocaust and wants to kill the Jews.

As Israeli journalist Hirsh Goodman writes in his fine new book, The Anatomy of Israel's Survival (Mc-Clelland & Stewart), "Iran is maniacally dedicated to Israel's destruction, and says so on every occasion, in every language -" He calls Iran the greatest existential threat to the Jewish people - half of whom live in Israel - since Hitler.

Rather than moral, our reservations here are practical. Fundamentally, there just are too many ways a military response could go wrong."


An Israeli attack on Iran would be madness

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 07:28 AM

LH,


"Meanwhile, Israel's got several hundred unofficial nukes set to fire anytime they want to, everyone knows it, and they hold the entire Middle East in the grip of mortal terror under their righteous nuclear Sword of Damocles. Kind of like... Jericho. Sodom. Gomorrah. All waiting to be wiped off the face of the Earth again by "God's Chosen", so that "God's Chosen" can have "The Promised Land" all to themselves.
"


The point is, when the Israelis were attacked in 72, and were nearly destroyed, did they use those weapons? NO. Would they have? ONLY if the population centers of Israel were being destroyed, and the majority of the population was already dead.

I would ask the question: Would those Arab neighbors of Israel you claim are in fear rather have Israel OR Iran with those nuclear weapons? Which do you think they would expect to use them for aggressive means?


I think Jordan and Lebanon are as much in fear of ISRAEL's nuclear weapons as Canada is of the US's.





"(I know we will disagree about that, BB. That's okay. I can disagree with you about politics and still like you fine as another human being who wants the same things I do: peace, justice, freedom, and happiness for everyone.)"

Agreed on that - We seek the same goals, we just see different paths as being effective.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: bobad
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 07:47 AM

"As speculation grows over Israeli or American plans to attack Iran's nuclear facilities, questions are being raised over Arab support for a military strike. Last year's WikiLeaks trove of US diplomatic cables showed unanimous support among Arab rulers for military action. Then as now, however, in public, those same rulers have remained tight-lipped.

The cables revealed an abiding mistrust across the region of Iranian ambitions. Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah urged Washington to "cut off the head of the snake," and both he and then-Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak described the Islamic Republic as "evil" and untrustworthy.

An Iranian nuclear weapon, Mubarak warned, was liable to set off a region-wide arms race.

"Bomb Iran, or live with an Iranian bomb," added Zeid Rifai, then president of the Jordanian senate. "Sanctions, carrots, incentives won't matter."

In the Persian Gulf, the rulers of Oman, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates were all reportedly in favor of a strike.

So too was the king of Bahrain, where a Sunni elite rules over a large Shi'ite majority and which officials in Iran have described as the country's "fifteenth province."

'Quiet' Arab coalition supports attack on Iran

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,Patsy
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 08:10 AM

It's like Iraq all over again and would be a mistake to go gungho into Iran in a similar way.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 09:24 AM

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-08/iran-worked-to-miniaturize-weapon-design.html

"Iran continued working on nuclear weapons at least until last year, including efforts to shrink a Pakistani warhead design to fit atop its ballistic missiles, a report from United Nations inspectors said.
The International Atomic Energy Agency, drawing on evidence collected over eight years, reported yesterday that Iran carried out "work on the development of an indigenous design of a nuclear weapon including the testing of components."
The document shows that Iran worked to redesign and miniaturize a Pakistani nuclear-weapon design by using a web of front companies and overseas experts, according to the report and an international official familiar with the IAEA's probe. Such a warhead could be mounted on Iran's Shahab-3 missile, which has the range to reach Israel, according to the IAEA."

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 09:35 AM

Russia rules out supporting fresh sanctions against Iran, despite a UN report that says Tehran may be trying to develop nuclear weapons.

Not even sanctions, never mind miltary actions.
China probably the same.
It breaks existing sanctions.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 10:41 AM

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/146347#.TrqeKnOrVCA

"The report cites a recently released poll by the Arab-American Institute (AAI) in six Arab countries. The poll showed a significant decrease in Iran's favorable ratings since 2006 and 2008.

James Zogby, founder and president of AAI, told Gulf News that while in previous polls the Arab public opinion was supportive of Iran's nuclear program and looked at it as "active defiance to the West," many things have since changed.

One of these changes can be attributed to the Arab Spring.

"I think also the Arab Spring has changed the psychology of the region," Zogby said. "The region is now looking at a different direction. They are looking inwards and not looking who is defying the U.S. the most. The U.S. has become almost irrelevant in this period."

He added that Arab people now come to see Iran's behavior "in its own light, so their interference in Iraq, or in Bahrain, or in Kuwait or in Lebanon, all those things have become more of a nuisance and a threat than as a challenge to the West."

The AAI poll included 4,000 Arabs and covered Egypt, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Jordan and the UAE. According to Zogby, the results found that Arabs now have a "strong regional support for the GCC's new and more assertive role protecting their regional interest."

As an example of the dwindling support to Iran, the percentage of Moroccans who have positive views toward Iran has dropped from 82 percent in 2006 to a mere 14 percent in 2011. In Egypt, 89 percent supported Iran in 2006, compared to 37 percent today. Saudis recorded the lowest percentage of positive views towards Iran with 6 percent, and on the other end Lebanon recorded the highest percentage, with 63.

The main conclusion of the poll, said Zogby, is that "None [of the Arabs] believe that the region would be safer if Iran became a nuclear power."

The poll also found that when asked if they had to choose one nation other than Israel to be a nuclear power in the Middle East, Egypt came in first. It was followed by Turkey, which received the highest favorable ratings in most Arab countries, mainly due to its recent positions on the Arab-Israeli conflict."

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 Feb 12 - 07:36 AM

http://news.yahoo.com/irans-inspection-rebuff-says-prospects-nuclear-diplomacy-090500726.html


"To those mesmerized by the drumbeat for war with Iran, Tehran's rejection on Tuesday of an International Atomic Energy Agency request to visit a sensitive military site signaled grim prospects for diplomacy resolving the nuclear standoff. The IAEA delegation had made its request to visit the military munitions facility at Parchin a litmus test of Iran's readiness to cooperate with efforts to investigate possible weapons research work Tehran is alleged to have carried out, particularly before 2003. Iran rebuffed the request, failing the litmus test."

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Mar 12 - 08:58 AM

http://news.yahoo.com/north-korea-says-launch-long-range-rocket-042546009.html

"PYONGYANG, North Korea (AP) — North Korea announced plans Friday to blast a satellite into space on the back of a long-range rocket, a provocative move that could jeopardize a weeks-old agreement with the U.S. exchanging food aid for nuclear concessions.
The North agreed to a moratorium on long-range launches as part of the deal with Washington, but it argues that its satellite launches are part of a peaceful space program that is exempt from any international disarmament agreements. The U.S., South Korea and other critics say the rocket technology overlaps with belligerent uses and condemn the satellite program as a disguised way of testing military missiles in defiance of a U.N. ban.
The launch is to take place three years after a similar launch in April 2009 drew widespread censure.
Japan urged Pyongyang to abandon the latest launch, calling it a violation of a U.N. resolution restricting the North's use of ballistic missile technology, and South Korea called the plans a "grave provocation."
"

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: RobbieWilson
Date: 16 Mar 12 - 10:51 PM

The men with the biggest weapons have always talked about bringing peace and how slaughtering the aggressive lesser beings is in everyone's interests. Problem has always been that they don't view anyone else as part of that everyone.

I don't worry about the threat from Iran, Korea, Afghanistan, only about the states which have brought mass, heading towards global, destruction to the world.

lets face it they would not sell any level of destructive capability on unless they had and were willing to use a bigger stick.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 31 May 12 - 11:21 AM

http://news.yahoo.com/iran-buildings-completely-razed-u-think-tank-080529272.html

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 01 Jun 12 - 09:30 AM

interesting

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 Mar 13 - 08:15 AM

NKorea vows to cancel Korean War cease-fire
Email this Story

Mar 5, 7:04 AM (ET)

SEOUL, South Korea (AP) - North Korea vowed Tuesday to cancel the 1953 cease-fire that ended the Korean War, citing a U.S.-led push for punishing U.N. sanctions over its recent nuclear test and ongoing U.S.-South Korean joint military drills.
North Korea's Korean People's Army Supreme Command warned of stronger additional countermeasures in a statement that came amid reports that Washington and North Korean ally Beijing have approved a draft of punishing sanctions for a U.N. Security Council resolution responding to North Korea's Feb. 12 nuclear test. The draft is expected to be circulated at the U.N. this week.
The United States and others worry that North Korea's third nuclear test pushes it a step closer toward its goal of having nuclear-armed missiles that can reach America, and condemn its rocket launches and nuclear tests as a dangerous threat to regional security.
North Korea says its nuclear program is a response to U.S. hostility that dates back to the 1950-53 Korean War, which ended with an armistice, not a peace treaty, leaving the Korean Peninsula still technically in a state of war.
North Korea warned it will cancel the Korean War cease-fire agreement on March 11, citing U.S.-South Korean military drills that began March 1.
North Korea said Washington and others are going beyond mere economic sanctions and expanding into blunt aggression and military acts. North Korea also warned that it will block a communications line between it and the United States at the border village separating the two Koreas.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 Mar 13 - 08:41 AM

Reuters) - Renewed international efforts to negotiate curbs on Iran's disputed nuclear program have backfired by giving it more time to work on building a bomb, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Sunday.

His remarks on the inconclusive February 26-27 meeting between Iran and six world powers signaled impatience by Israel, which has threatened to launch preemptive war on its arch-foe, possibly in the coming months, if it deems diplomacy a dead end.

Senior U.S. diplomat Wendy Sherman flew in to brief Israel about the Kazakh-hosted talks, in which Tehran, which denies seeking nuclear arms, was offered modest relief from sanctions in return for halting mid-level uranium enrichment.

There was no breakthrough. The sides will reconvene in Almaty on April 5-6 after holding technical talks in Istanbul.

"My impression from these talks is that the only thing that is gained from them is a buying of time, and through this time-buying Iran intends to continue enriching nuclear material for an atomic bomb and is indeed getting closer to this goal," Netanyahu told his Cabinet in remarks aired by Israeli media.

Extrapolating from U.N. reports on Iran's enrichment of uranium to 20 percent fissile purity, a short technical step from weapons-grade, Netanyahu has set a mid-2013 "red line" for denying the Islamic republic the fuel needed for a first bomb.

Iranian media reported on Sunday the country was building around 3,000 new advanced enrichment centrifuges, a development that could accelerate the nuclear project.

The prospect of unilateral Israeli strikes, and the likely wide-ranging reprisals by Iran and its regional allies, worries Washington, which wants to pursue diplomacy as it winds down costly military commitments abroad.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Rapparee
Date: 05 Mar 13 - 09:01 AM

The DPRK is pissed off because China, its only possible ally, is supporting every other nation. Unlike 1950, if the DPRK starts another shooting war (or rather, increases the level of violence) it will not have allies as it did in 1950. China disapproves and Russia dropped out long ago. The United Nations Command would re-activate, the US and others will put in troops and possibly use nukes if nukes are used against them.

The loser in this is the fourth largest economic power in Asia, the Republic of Korea, which will have to rebuild again.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 Mar 13 - 09:02 AM

Obama not bluffing over Iran military threat, Biden tells Aipac
Vice-president tells Aipac that military option remains on the table for Obama to prevent Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon
Share 864


inShare
3
Email
Ewen MacAskill

guardian.co.uk, Monday 4 March 2013 12.56 EST
Jump to comments (525)

Joe Biden also said the US remained committed to a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Photograph: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
Barack Obama's threats to use military force to prevent Iran securing a nuclear weapon are more than idle bluffs, vice-president Joe Biden told the biggest pro-Israeli lobbying group Aipac on Monday.

Biden said that while the US preferred a diplomatic solution to the standoff with Iran, a military option remained on the table.

"The president of the United States cannot, and does not, bluff. President Barack Obama is not bluffing," Biden told the audience in Washington.

Israel is seeking assurances of support from the US, should it decide to launch air strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities.

There has been scepticism about Obama's commitment to a military option against Iran, given the administration's general unwillingness to be drawn into new conflicts after the experience of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Some observers feel that Obama's threat is aimed purely at putting pressure on Iran to resolve the standoff diplomatically and not embark on another conflict.

Pro-Israel supporters of the military option, speaking at Aipac's annual conference, attempted to counter Obama's reticence by insisting the military option would only require an overnight air strike, rather than a prolonged conflict.

In contrast with the run-up to the Iraq war, the US is determined to show that it is pursuing all alternatives to conflict. Biden said that if the US had to take military action, it was critical that the world knew it had tried everything in its power to prevent such an eventuality.

Obama, in an interview last year, insisted he was not bluffing. But his public pronouncements contrasted with behind-the-scenes US pressure on Israel to hold back from an air strike, particularly in the White House election year. The White House views Iran as the top foreign policy priority of Obama's second term.

The US and other governments held inconclusive talks with Iran recently, and further talks are planned. The new US secretary of state John Kerry, at a press conference in Saudi Arabia on Monday, said there was a "finite" time for conclusion of the talks.

Iran denies it is pursuing a nuclear weapon, and insists it only wants nuclear power to meet domestic energy needs.

Addressing the conference via satellite link from Israel, prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu said Iran had not yet crossed the red line on the nuclear issue but it was getting closer. He expressed scepticism about the value of sanctions and called for a more credible military threat.

Biden was speaking before a trip planned by Obama to Jerusalem later this month, provided an Israeli government is in place by then. Iran, not Palestine, is the key issue for Israel at present, though Biden stressed that the White House remained committed to a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Obama is viewed with suspicion by many Israelis who see him as too sympathetic to the Palestinians, but Biden's credentials as a staunch supporter of Israel have seldom been challenged. Biden insisted that he and Obama were deeply committed to the security of Israel.

"It is in our naked self-interest, beyond the moral impertive," Biden said.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 Mar 13 - 09:04 AM

AND the people of North Korea, who would mostly be dead.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 Mar 13 - 11:46 AM

North Korea Says the Korean War Is Back On
By Dashiell Bennett | The Atlantic Wire – 3 hrs ago
Email
Share1
Print
The military command of North Korea says that if South Korea and the United States don't cancel their joint military exercises by March 11, they can consider that whole 60-year-old armistice agreement totally over. The newest threat comes as China and the U.S. are reportedly drawing up new sanctions that they have negotiated together and will submit the U.N. Security Council to punish the DPRK for its nuclear weapons test last month.
RELATED: North Korea Pounds Chest as South Prepares For Drills
South Korea and the United States began a series of "war games" on March 1, an annual exercise that serves as reminder to the North about the united front they face from the two allies. It's also a helpful reminder that that Korea War has never technically ended. The DMZ that divides the peninsula enforces an armistice agreement that was signed in 1953. It was designed to create a cease-fire "until a final peaceful settlement is achieved," but that never happened and no formal peace treaty was ever agreed to. That's why the U.S. Eighth Army never left and two nations are in a near constant state of belligerence.
RELATED: North Korea Hit Up South Korea for Money at Service for Kim Jong-Il
The joint training operations between the South and the U.S. are set to last until April 30, but this is not the first time the North has threatened to destroy one or both of its rivals. It's hard to imagine that the shooting will start again soon, but there's no doubt that the rhetoric has never been harsher.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 Mar 13 - 11:50 AM

Former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger has warned that a crisis involving a nuclear Iran is in the "foreseeable future".

The Nobel Peace laureate, 89, was speaking about prospects in the Middle East at the World Economic Forum.

He said nuclear proliferation in the region triggered by an armed Iran would increase the chances of an atomic war - "a turning point in human history".

He also urged the US and Russia to co-operate in resolving Syria's conflict.

"There has emerged in the region, the current and most urgent issue of nuclear proliferation. For 15 years, the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) have declared that a nuclear Iran is unacceptable, but it has been approaching," he said.

"In a few years, people will have to come to a determination of how to react, or the consequences of non-reaction.

"I believe this point will be reached in a very foreseeable future," he added.

'Nuclear war'
In his assessment of the stand-off between Iran and Western powers over its nuclear programme - which Tehran argues is for peaceful and civilian purposes - Mr Kissinger called for "serious" negotiations on both sides to look for solutions.

"Unilateral intervention by Israel would be a desperate last resort, but the Iranians have to understand that if they keep using the negotiations to gain time to complete a nuclear programme then the situation will become extremely dangerous."

The consequences of Tehran's programme, he said, would be that other countries in the region would also want nuclear arms.

"The danger is that we could be reaching a point where nuclear weapons would become almost conventional, and there will be the possibility of a nuclear conflict at some point... that would be a turning point in human history," he said.

"If Iran acts as a nation and not as a revolutionary cause, there is no reason for America or other permanent members of the UNSC to be in conflict with it, nor any countries in the region. On that basis I would hope that a negotiated solution would be found in a measurable time."

Meanwhile, Mr Kissinger advocated a US-Russia understanding over the conflict in Syria, while opposing military intervention.

"The Syrian problem would best be dealt internationally by Russia and America not making it a contest of national interests," he said.

"I would hope that the undertaking of the US foreign policy will not be be characterised by the divisions that we see in [its] domestic policy."

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 Mar 13 - 11:59 AM

At the end of his first overseas trip as Secretary of State, John Kerry acknowledged that despite the continued diplomacy and tough sanctions being leveled against Iran, the regime continues to get closer to possessing a nuclear weapon.
"Lines have been drawn before and they've been passed," Kerry said. "That's why the president has been so definitive this time. This is a very challenging moment with great risks and stakes for everybody because the region will be far less stable and far more threatened if Iran were to have a nuclear weapon."
Kerry sat down with ABC News' Martha Raddatz in Qatar as his first overseas trip as President Obama's secretary of state wound down.
Kerry said the threat extends beyond the possibility that Iran could actually use the weapon on its enemies, specifically Israel. Iran simply having a nuclear weapon would "spur a nuclear arms race" in the region and could be used to support terrorists groups like Hezbollah, he said.
The secretary warned that despite last week's negotiations in Almaty between the United States, it's allies and Iran, which he called "useful," time for Iran to cooperate is running out.
Transcript of Secretary of State John Kerry's Interview With Martha Raddatz
"If they keep pushing the limits and not coming with a serious set of proposals or prepared to actually resolve this, obviously the risks get higher and confrontation becomes more possible," he said.
On Syria, the other major focus of this trip, Kerry reiterated that the status quo in the conflict-ridden country is not acceptable. With more than 70,000 people killed over the last two years and recent reports of President Assad al-Bashir using Scud missiles to attack civilian areas, the secretary acknowledged that America must do more.
At a Friends of Syria Meeting in Rome last week Kerry announced the United States would give an additional $60 million in non-lethal aid to Syria's political opposition. The money will be used for communications equipment, training advocates and local governing councils, and to help the opposition deliver services and food to Syrians living in opposition-held areas.
But Kerry also announced that for the first time the United States will be providing non-lethal aid to Syria's military opposition too. For now the help will consist of food and medical supplies, but ABC News learned last week that the aid could eventually include body armor, military training and even tanks.
Kerry would not specifically comment on whether the United States is considering additional aid to the rebel fighters, or on the timing of that decision, but said that it is clear Assad needs to go – and quickly.
"There is a holistic, united effort now that is focused on trying to save lives in Syria, and make it clear to President Assad that we are determined and that he needs to think hard about his calculation in raining Scuds down on his population," said Kerry.
Syria's opposition also has its own problems with extremists elements increasingly playing a role, including carrying out a suicide bombing attack, which killed more than 50 people in Damascus earlier this month. Kerry said that the international community has to be careful about making sure a post-Assad Syria is not substituting one oppressive situation for another.
"I want to emphasize for all of the Alawites who are fearing for their future, for the Christians, or the Druze, or any group there, Sunni, Shiite – they all need to know that the vision of the Syrian opposition, the promise of the Syrian opposition is to have a Syria in which all votes are represented and protected," he said.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Greg F.
Date: 05 Mar 13 - 12:15 PM

Beardie's evidently off his meds again. Give it time - it'll clear.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 Mar 13 - 12:42 PM

Again, the resident racist scum has nothing to contribute but personnel attack.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 05 Mar 13 - 12:59 PM

""Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity - PM
Date: 01 Jun 12 - 09:30 AM

interesting

GfS""

And the source is Faux News?..........not so interesting!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Rapparee
Date: 05 Mar 13 - 01:12 PM

Well, the Yonhap News Agency is telling the same story.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 Mar 13 - 08:30 AM

NORTH Korea led by tyrant Kim Jong-un has sensationally vowed to launch a NUCLEAR attack on the USA.
The provocative statement comes weeks after the country conducted underground nuclear tests which caused a massive earthquake.
America's west coast cities on Los Angeles and San Francisco are feared to be in Kim's sights.
A foreign ministry spokesman said: "Since the United States is about to ignite a nuclear war, we will be exercising our right to pre-emptive nuclear attack against the headquarters of the aggressor in order to protect our supreme interest."


Read more: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4829035/north-korea-says-it-will-launch-nuclear-attack-on-america.html#ixzz2MrPSDt2x

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 Mar 13 - 08:39 AM

And for Don, who judges truth by whether he agrees with the source :

Soap opera loving general delivers North Korean ultimatum
By Jack Kim | Reuters – Wed, Mar 6, 2013
Email
Share31
Print
SEOUL (Reuters) - The new face of North Korea's military threat to the United States is a man who once disarmed his opponents by narrating sections of his favorite South Korean soap operas during tense negotiations.
Even as he delivered North Korea's message on Tuesday terminating its armistice with the United States that ended the 1950-53 Korean War, General Kim Yong-chol opted for measured tones rather than the usual harsh rhetoric that characterizes announcements from Pyongyang.
Yet behind the calm demeanor of the four-star general is a man believed to have masterminded the sinking of a South Korean warship in 2010 that killed 46 sailors, according to officials and experts who study the North.
Seen as a hardliner, Kim is believed to have also had a hand in the shelling of a South Korean island in the same year that killed two civilians, the first such deaths on Korean soil in 24 years, and in the hacking of a South Korean bank.
Kim heads North Korea's "Reconnaissance General Bureau", the agency that leads intelligence operations in the South.
"The message behind putting somebody like Kim up there to make that statement is clearly to escalate tensions," said Baek Seung-joo of the Korea Institute of Defence Analyses, a government-affiliated think tank in Seoul.
Kim, born in 1945, has had spells in intelligence and in special forces. He met many times with his South Korean counterparts at talks in the early 2000s when relations between the two Koreas thawed and Washington and Pyongyang negotiated over the North's nuclear program.
It was at those meetings, according to people who were present, that he revealed his penchant for South Korean soap operas, banned for the most part in North Korea but nonetheless a staple of escapism for many in the isolated and impoverished country.
Sitting at military talks in 2007 at the truce village straddling the rival Koreas' heavily armed border, Kim baffled those at the table by using most of his opening remarks to talk about a South Korean soap opera he had recently seen.
When he wrapped up the tale, the message became clear. He wanted to emphasize the importance of communications as a way to build confidence and improve relationships, even between those who are as close as family or compatriots.
That is the way North Korea views the division of the peninsula, a family torn apart thanks to the presence of "foreign" or U.S. forces.
CLEAR MESSAGE
While Kim Yong-chol's tone was milder than many of the propaganda broadcasts from North Korea and read in Korean, there was no mistaking the message.
The general was a trusted military aide to the North's previous leader Kim Jong-il who died in 2011 and is a close confidant of its 30-year old new ruler, Kim Jong-un, although he had been reported to have been demoted in a purge last year.
In just over a year in power the young Kim appears to have pursued an even harder and more military line than his father, who ruled for 17 years.
There have been two rocket launches, both outlawed by U.N. sanctions and one nuclear test, the country's third and most powerful to date.
Despite imminent new sanctions from the U.N. Security Council, Kim Jong-un appears ready to push ahead with more nuclear tests, according to people familiar with North Korea's thinking.
In the meantime, the soap-opera loving general is an ideal choice as the face of a leadership unwilling to compromise on its nuclear weapons plans.
In 2008, while visiting the border city of Kaesong where South Korean firms use North Korean labour to make household goods, he quoted from another TV drama produced in the South to criticize the government in Seoul under then President Lee Myung-bak, who had taken a tough stance toward Pyongyang.
Warning that Lee would soon lose domestic political backing for mismanaging public sentiment, he used the analogy of a ship that sinks in turbulent waters.
"The people are the water and the ruler is the boat," he said, without any apparent ironic reference to North Korea, the world's only hereditary "Stalinist" monarchy and personality cult centered around three generations of the ruling Kim family.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,A Regular
Date: 07 Mar 13 - 09:51 AM

Part of the 'problem' if such a debacle can be so named is that the USA has little idea about the North Korean mindset. The USA is missing a great opportunity to begin speaking with North Korea. Barack Obama should pick up the phone and talk some basketball with Kim Jong-un. The talk would of course be allegorical, but the results would be concrete.

North Americans tend to underestimate the meaning and subsequent importance of 'face' in the Korean mind. They are an extremely proud people who will choose death before dishonour, and they don't need tattoos to reinforce that in their own minds. When you have a Korean friend, you have a friend who will extend that courtesy to you; when you have a Korean enemy . . . .

In my middle age I got lucky in a martial arts match with a Korean opponent and landed a mid-section spin back kick. He dropped and as is customary, I turned my back and knelt because it is lèse-majesté to witness your opponent in bad shape. He was up and ready in less than a minute and we resumed the fight. I lost, but was able to pass the message to him through the referee that he was one tough cookie and I would have lost sooner had I not had that one lucky kick. Later in the day he taught me a few things I didn't know and we parted friends. I don't doubt that were we to meet again these thirty or so years later we would remember each other. There's a lesson in there I wish world leaders would awaken to, but I am not holding my breath.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Rapparee
Date: 07 Mar 13 - 10:27 AM

Regular, I hate to disagree with you but after 60 years at the negotiating table in Panmunjon, after an average of 28 violations of the 1953 accords by the PRK between 1953 and 2004, after defections by
top DPRK personnel over the years, after 60 years of monitoring the communications nets of the DPRK, and especially after 60 years of working closely with the ROK and Japan on understanding the DPRK, I think we and the UN have a pretty good handle on the North Korean leaders' mindsets.

There hasn't been peace on the Korean Pennisula since June 20, 1950. There has only been greater or lesser periods of conflict.

I hasten to add that it is not, in any way, the policies of the people of the DPRK except in so far as they have been brainwashed by their leaders. I urge you to read a book called "The Aquariums of Pyongyang" and other accounts by common-man defectors to the Republic of Korea. The people of the DPRK want enough food for their families and themselves and a stable future, just as people everywhere do. North Korea does not supply those things.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,A Regular
Date: 07 Mar 13 - 10:31 AM

Hard to get food to people when your goal is military. There is something similar happening now in the USA with 17,000,000 kids going hungry on a daily basis. I understand that they are hard to deal with, but so too is the USA, with no offence meant to you.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,A Regular
Date: 07 Mar 13 - 10:46 AM

Rap, you might wish to read this because it is important.

I promise it won't be a waste of your time.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Rapparee
Date: 07 Mar 13 - 11:35 PM

Interesting, and I've said all along that the US and China should not, and in my opinion will not, "go to the mattresses" over the DPRK. That would certainly not be in China's best interests, and a war with the DPRK would ruin the economy of the ROK, the fourth largest economic power in Asia.

But I suggest reading this, long though it is. You might also want to browse through the materials
here, and poke around in here.

I have gone into this in some depth because I was there when I was in the Army (1969) and now have a far, far better understanding of what went on and what is going on now than I ever did then. From the point of view of an old Infantryman, I'd much rather folks talked and resolved things peaceably.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 08 Mar 13 - 05:48 AM

""And for Don, who judges truth by whether he agrees with the source :""

And for BB, who never checks what others are talking about, because he is only inteested in his own opinion:

If you took the trouble, to read, you would know that I was responding to a post dated 1st June 2012, in error, as it was the last one before the current flurry (a good reason, incidentally, for starting a new thread rather than re-opening a huge one that has been dead for nine months).

So, I cocked up and answered an irrelevant comment, and you reacted in your normal paranoid manner and assumed it was aimed at you.

Believe me BB, you aren't that important to me.

With apologies to everyone else for the drift.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Mar 13 - 10:41 AM

N Korea declares that the truce is over, and it will resume active combat, and no one cares to even comment.

The truce was with the UN- so this involves everyone who is in a member nation.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: bobad
Date: 11 Mar 13 - 11:10 AM

North Korea has a death wish.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Mar 13 - 12:19 PM

Hopefully, they are just making some noise to satisfy their own emotional needs...

If they were foolish enough to start a new Korean war, it would be quite dangerous not just for them, but for that whole region, and possibly for much of the world, since one thing can lead to another which can lead to another...kind of like Serbia's local quarrel with Austria-Hungary in 1914 led to virtually all of Europe going to war and eventually to American involvement as well.

The fact that they have a few nuclear weapons increases the danger of some major misadventure. I'm glad I'm not living in either Seoul or Pyongyang (specially the latter).

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Mar 13 - 12:24 PM

LH,

They have already repudiated the truce- we have been at ware since 1950 or so.

There is just a limited amount of shooting at each other ( a good thing, BTW).

But when the launch something, and we react (Probably because of Japan) it will be too late to debate whether they are crazy enough ( or believe their own propaganda too much)- I too pity the civilian population of N Korea.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Mar 13 - 12:34 PM

Yup. Me too. I think that the populations of both the North and the South would be in great danger if a shooting war started (on a large scale). There's also the risk that China might get drawn in, as they did the last time.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Mar 13 - 01:21 PM

"

...Part propaganda, part paranoia

"Partly for propaganda purposes and partly out of a kind of paranoia that makes them fear for their security, North Korea regards the exercises as a threat, even though they are defensive in nature," says Yonsei University professor Moon Chung-in.

The 2010 shelling of Yeonpyeong Island began after North Korea determined that South Korean forces had fired into their water during military exercises. North Korea then fired on the South, with what they considered to be a defensive response.

The North depicts South Korean military exercises are depicted as a threat, because the North Korean state draws much of its legitimacy from the perception that its military strength allows it to defend its territory from what it says are hostile forces, specifically the US and South Korea. To keep this afloat, the North Korean state must be able to point to external actions as evidence of an active threat, say analysts.

How will Seoul respond?

The most pressing question in South Korea is what will Seoul do if the North does carry out a military strike. The shelling of Yeonpyeong Island in 2010 resulted in the deaths of four South Koreans, and the Seoul government at the time was heavily criticized for what was seen as a weak military response.

The government has pledged not to repeat that response. Kim Yong-hyun, operational director of South Korea's Joint Chiefs of Staff said last week: "If North Korea pushes ahead with provocations that would threaten the lives and safety of our citizens, our military will strongly and sternly punish the provocations' starting point, its supporting forces and corps-level commanding post."

If the North does engage in fire this time around, which is unlikely given the war-ready state in the South and the fact that North Korea usually times its provocations to be unexpected, a military clash would, indeed, be the likely outcome, say analysts.

"There is deep concern in South Korea and among US policymakers that North Korea might carry out a conventional attack in the western sea or along the DMZ [demilitarized zone] that would trigger a very serious South Korean response and that we would be caught in an escalatory situation that could be extremely dangerous. South Korea cannot afford a repeat of 2010 when North Korea carried out two serious provocations free of any consequences," says Daniel Sneider, a Korea expert at Stanford University.

A key difference between now and 2010 is that South Korean forces were caught unprepared and made only a hasty response to the shelling, while this week, forces throughout the country are on high alert and ready to respond to any action by North Korea."







I defer to those with real experience there as to how much more dangerous this makes the region...

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Mar 13 - 01:24 PM

It OK!

We won't shoot back.





"UN Says Korean War Armistice Still in Force

By PETER JAMES SPIELMANN Associated Press
UNITED NATIONS March 11, 2013 (AP)
The armistice ending the Korean War is still valid and still in force, despite North Korea's claim that it has been nullified, the top U.N. spokesman said Monday.

Martin Nesirky said the 60-year-old armistice agreement had been adopted by the U.N. General Assembly and neither North Korea nor South Korea could dissolve it unilaterally.

North Korea's Foreign Ministry last week said it was cancelling the armistice after the U.N. Security Council adopted another round of sanctions to punish Pyongyang for its latest nuclear test.

The country's main newspaper, Rodong Sinmun, reported Monday that the armistice was nullified.

North Korea's mission to the U.N. did not respond to requests for comment.

"The terms of the armistice agreement do not allow either side unilaterally to free themselves from it," said Nesirky, the spokesman for U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.

"The secretary-general calls on the Democratic People's Republic of Korea to continue to respect the terms of the armistice agreement as it was approved by the General Assembly," Nesirky added.

He said officials at U.N. headquarters in New York were unaware of any operational changes on the ground on the Korean Peninsula.

The North followed through on another promise Monday, shutting down a Red Cross hotline that the North and South used for general communication and to discuss aid shipments and separated families' reunions.
"

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 08:22 AM

Photo: APReleased by the Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) and distributed March 12, 2013 by the Korea News Service, North Korean leader Kim Jong Un rides on a boat, heading for the Wolnae Islet Defense Detachment, North Korea, near the western sea border with South Korea. North Korea's young leader urged front-line troops to be on "maximum alert" for a potential war as a state-run newspaper said Pyongyang had carried out a threat to cancel the 1953 armistice that ended the Korean War.
Show more

Photo: APReleased by the Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) and distributed March 12, 2013 by the Korea News Service, North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, third left, looks at South's western border island of Baengnyeong during his visit to the Wolnae Islet Defense Detachment, North Korea. North Korea's young leader urged front-line troops to be on "maximum alert" for a potential war as a state-run newspaper said Pyongyang had carried out a threat to cancel the 1953 armistice that ended the Korean War.
Show more

Photo: APReleased by the Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) and distributed March 12, 2013 by the Korea News Service, North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, center, confers with military officers at a long-range artillery sub-unit of KPA Unit 641 during his visit to front-line military units near the western sea border in North Korea near the South's western border island of Baengnyeong. Kim urged front-line troops to be on "maximum alert" for a potential war as a state-run newspaper said Pyongyang had carried out a threat to cancel the 1953 armistice that ended the Korean War.
Show more

Photo: APReleased by the Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) and distributed March 12, 2013 by the Korea News Service, North Korean leader Kim Jong Un rides on a boat, heading for the Wolnae Islet Defense Detachment, North Korea, near the western sea border with South Korea. North Korea's young leader urged front-line troops to be on "maximum alert" for a potential war as a state-run newspaper said Pyongyang had carried out a threat to cancel the 1953 armistice that ended the Korean War.
Show more

Photo: APReleased by the Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) and distributed March 12, 2013 by the Korea News Service, North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, third left, looks at South's western border island of Baengnyeong during his visit to the Wolnae Islet Defense Detachment, North Korea. North Korea's young leader urged front-line troops to be on "maximum alert" for a potential war as a state-run newspaper said Pyongyang had carried out a threat to cancel the 1953 armistice that ended the Korean War.
Show more
More Photos (1 of 3)
SEOUL, South Korea (AP) — Recent Korean history reveals a sobering possibility: It may only be a matter of time before North Korea launches a sudden, deadly attack on the South. And perhaps more unsettling, Seoul has vowed that this time, it will respond with an even stronger blow.

Humiliated by past attacks, South Korea has promised — as recently as Tuesday — to hit back hard at the next assault from the North, opening up the prospect that a skirmish could turn into a wider war.

Advertisement

Lost in the headline-making North Korean bluster about nuclear strikes on Washington in response to U.N. sanctions is a single sentence in a North Korean army Supreme Command statement of March 5. It said North Korea "will make a strike of justice at any target anytime as it pleases without limit."

Those words have a chilling link to the recent past, when Pyongyang, angry over perceived slights, took its time before exacting revenge on rival South Korea. Vows of retaliation after naval clashes with South Korea in 1999 and 2009, for example, were followed by more bloodshed, including attacks blamed on North Korea that killed 50 South Koreans in 2010.

Those attacks three years ago "are vivid reminders of the regime's capabilities and intentions," Bruce Klingner, a former U.S. intelligence official now at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, wrote in a recent think tank posting.

Also on mail.com

Carney: U.S. 'Concerned' by N. Korea's Rhetoric
Almost a mirror image of the current tensions happened in 2009, when the U.N. approved sanctions over North Korean missile and nuclear tests, and Pyongyang responded with fury. In November of that year, Seoul claimed victory in a sea battle with the North, and Pyongyang vowed revenge.

In March 2010, the Cheonan, a 1,200-ton South Korean warship, exploded and sank in the Yellow Sea, killing 46 sailors. A South Korean-led international investigation found that North Korea torpedoed the ship, a claim Pyongyang denies.

The Cheonan sinking may have been retaliation for the naval defeat four months earlier, said Koh Yu-hwan, a North Korea specialist at Seoul's Dongguk University. In November 2010, North Korea sent a warning to South Korea to cancel a routine live-fire artillery drill planned on Yeonpyeong Island, which is only seven miles from North Korea and lies in Yellow Sea waters that North Korea claims as its own.

South Korea went ahead with the drills, firing, Seoul says, into waters away from North Korean territory. North Korea sent artillery shells raining down on the island, killing two civilians and two marines.

South Korea responded with artillery fire of its own, but the government of then-President Lee Myung-bak was severely criticized for what was seen as a slow, weak response. Lee, a conservative who infuriated North Korea by ending the previous liberal government's "sunshine policy" of huge aid shipments with few strings attached, vowed massive retaliation if hit again by the North.

The government of newly inaugurated President Park Geun-hye, also a conservative, has made similar comments, though she has also said she will try to build trust with North Korea and explore renewed dialogue and aid shipments.

South Korea's Defense Ministry on Tuesday repeated that it would respond harshly to any future attack from the North. Spokesman Kim Min-seok said there were no signs that North Korea would attack anytime soon, but warned that if it did, it would suffer "much more powerful damage" than whatever it inflicted on South Korea.

If war broke out, the United States would assume control of South Korea's military because of the countries' decades-old alliance that began with the U.S.-led military response to North Korean invaders in 1950. But South Korea has made clear that it has a sovereign right, and a political necessity, to respond strongly to future North Korean attacks.

A clue to when North Korea might attack may be in the timing of the current threats. North Korea is furious over ongoing annual U.S.-South Korean military drills that will continue until the end of April.

Pyongyang is highly unlikely to stage an attack when so much U.S. firepower is assembled, but analysts said it might hit South Korea after the drills end. "They are quiet when tension is high and state-of-the-art (U.S.) weapons are brought to South Korea for the drills," said Chon Hyun-joon, an analyst at the government-funded Korea Institute for National Unification in Seoul.

http://www.mail.com/news/politics/1946486-history-nkorean-pattern-wait-then-attack.html#.7518-stage-subhero1-1

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 08:28 AM

And just to finish on a happy note...


"Bloody sea battles in 1999, 2002 and 2009, and North Korea's artillery bombardment of Yeonpyeong Island in 2010, took place weeks after annual drills by South Korea and the United States, Chon said. In those cases and in the current drills, North Korea's state media reacted to the war games with harsh criticism, calling them preparations for a northward invasion.

North Korea sometimes takes months to follow through on its occasionally cryptic threats or warnings, but it also has acted quickly. North Korea has attempted a military provocation within weeks of every South Korean presidential inauguration dating back to 1992, according to Victor Cha, a former Asia adviser to President George W. Bush, and Ellen Kim at the Center for Strategic and International Studies think tank in Washington. South Korea's new president was inaugurated Feb. 25.

"Expect a North Korean provocation in the coming weeks," Cha and Kim wrote Thursday."

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 12:03 PM

WHen I agree with the present administration, you know you need to worry...



WASHINGTON (AP) — An unpredictable North Korea, with its nuclear weapons and missile programs, stands as a serious threat to the United States and East Asia nations, the director of National Intelligence warned Tuesday in a sober assessment of worldwide threats.
Testifying before a Senate panel, James R. Clapper delivered the U.S. intelligence community's overview of global threats posed by terrorism, cyber attacks, weapons of mass destruction, the months-long civil war in Syria and the unsettled situation in post-Arab Spring nations.
The outlook on North Korea comes as the communist regime announced that it was "completely scrapping" the 1953 armistice that ended the Korean War and has maintained peace on the peninsula for more than half a century. The Obama administration on Monday slapped new sanctions against North Korea's primary exchange bank and several senior government officials as it expressed concern about the North's "bellicose rhetoric."
"The Intelligence community has long assessed that, in Pyongyang's view, its nuclear capabilities are intended for deterrence, international prestige and coercive diplomacy. We do not know Pyongyang's nuclear doctrine or employment concepts," Clapper told the Senate Intelligence Committee. "Although we assess with low confidence that the North would only attempt to use nuclear weapons against U.S. forces or allies to preserve the Kim regime, we do not know what would constitute, from the North's perspective, crossing that threshold."
North Korea, led by its young leader Kim Jong Un, has defied the international community in the last three months, testing an intercontinental ballistic missile and a third nuclear bomb.
Pressed on North Korea, Clapper said he was "very concerned about the actions of the new young leader." He described the talk emanating from Pyongyang as "very belligerent."
"The rhetoric, while propaganda-laced, is an indicator of their attitude," Clapper said.
And in Syria, President Bashar Assad's inability to quash the uprising in his country increases the possibility that he will use chemical weapons against his people, Clapper said.
"We assess that an increasingly beleaguered regime, having found its escalation of violence through conventional means inadequate, might be prepared to use chemical weapons against the Syrian people," he said. "In addition, groups or individuals in Syria could gain access to chemical weapons-related material."
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence committee, described Syria as a "massive and still growing humanitarian disaster under way with no end in sight."
The United Nations estimates more than 70,000 people have been killed in the civil war, which started two years ago against Assad's rule.
Clapper warned about the impact of automatic, across-the-board budget cuts that kicked in March 1, arguing that it will degrade the ability of the intelligence community.
The top U.S. intelligence chief said the budget cuts have jeopardized America's security and safety — and will only get worse over time. He said the reductions will shave about $4 billion from intelligence budgets. He said that amounted to about 10 percent of national intelligence programs.
Clapper said if the government is not careful, "we risk another damaging downward spiral."
The report said North Korea has exported ballistic missiles and associated materials to a number of countries, including Iran and Syria. It also displayed what appeared to be a road-mobile intercontinental ballistic missile and put a satellite in orbit with a launch vehicle.
"These programs demonstrate North Korea's commitment to develop long-range missile technology that could pose a direct threat to the United States, and its efforts to produce and market ballistic missiles raise broader regional and global security concerns," the report said.
Clapper testified with newly installed CIA Director John Brennan and FBI Director Robert Mueller. Feinstein pointed to successes in the war on terror — 105 terrorism-related arrests in the United States in the past four year and 438 convictions since Sept. 11, 2001.
In assessing Iran, the report stated flatly that Tehran is developing nuclear capabilities to enhance its security and influence and "give it the ability to develop a nuclear weapon." But the report stopped short of saying a decision has been made.
"We do not know if Iran will eventually decide to build nuclear weapons," the report said.
Clapper explained that in the last year, Iran has made progress in working toward producing weapons-grade uranium. However, the report said Iran "could not divert safeguarded material and produce a weapon-worth of weapons-grade uranium before this activity is discovered."
The assessment on Iran comes shortly before President Barack Obama's trip to Israel, where Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has warned that the world has until this summer — at the latest — to keep Tehran from building a bomb. The Israeli leader repeatedly has indicated Israel is willing to strike militarily to stop Iran, a step that would likely drag in the United States.
The report said terrorist threats are in transition with an increasingly decentralized global jihadist movement. The Arab Spring, however, has created a spike in threats to U.S. interests in the region "that likely will endure until political upheaval stabilizes and security forces regain their capabilities."

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Mar 13 - 08:26 AM

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Iran has significantly stepped up military support to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in recent months, solidifying its position alongside Russia as the government's lifeline in an increasingly sectarian civil war, Western diplomats said.
Iranian weapons continue to pour into Syria from Iraq but also increasingly along other routes, including via Turkey and Lebanon, in violation of a U.N. arms embargo on Iran, Western officials told Reuters on condition of anonymity. Iraqi and Turkish officials denied the allegations.
Iran's acceleration of support for Assad suggests the Syrian war is entering a new phase in which Iran may be trying to end the battlefield stalemate by redoubling its commitment to Assad and offering Syria's increasingly isolated government a crucial lifeline, the envoys said.
It also highlights the growing sectarian nature of the conflict, diplomats say, with Iranian arms flowing to the Shi'ite militant group Hezbollah. That group is increasingly active on the ground in Syria in support of Assad's forces, envoys say.
The Syrian conflict started out two years ago as a pro-democracy movement. Some 70,000 people have been killed and more than 1 million refugees have fled the violence.
A Western intelligence report seen by Reuters in September said Iran was using civilian aircraft to fly military personnel and large quantities of weapons across Iraqi airspace to aid Assad. Iraq denied that report but later made a point of inspecting an Iran-bound flight that it said had no arms on board.
Much of the weaponry going to Syria now, diplomats say, continues to be shipped to Iran through Iraqi airspace and overland through Iraq, despite Baghdad's repeated promises to put a stop to Iranian arms supplies to Assad in violation of a U.N. arms embargo on Tehran over its nuclear program.
"The Iranians really are supporting massively the regime," a senior Western diplomat said this week. "They have been increasing their support for the last three, four months through Iraq's airspace and now trucks. And the Iraqis really are looking the other way."
"They (Iran) are playing now a crucial role," the senior diplomat said, adding that Hezbollah was "hardly hiding the support it's giving to the (Syrian) regime."
He added that the Syrian civil war was becoming "more and more sectarian," with Sunnis - an increasing number of whom come from Iraq - battling Shi'ites and members of Assad's Alawite sect, an offshoot of Shi'ite Islam.
Ali al-Moussawi, Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's media adviser, strongly denied the allegations, saying on Wednesday: "No, such a thing never happened. Weapons did not and will not be transferred from Iran to Syria through Iraq, whether by land or by air."
Russia, diplomats said, also remained a key arms supplier for Assad. Unlike Iran, neither Syria nor Russia is subject to a U.N. ban on arms trade and are therefore not in violation of any U.N. rules when conducting weapons commerce. But accepting Iranian arms would be a violation of the U.N. Iran sanctions.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Mar 13 - 12:07 PM

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iranian media say the military has test-fired several short-range missiles, including the type Palestinian militant Hamas group used to attack Tel Aviv last November.

Thursday's report by the semi-official Fars news agency says the missiles were tested during an army exercise in central Iran. It says the missiles fired were Nazeat-10 and Fajr-5.

During weeks of fighting in November, Gaza's Hamas rulers fired Iranian-made Fajr-5 rockets that came close to Israel's heartland, including the cities of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem for the first time.

Later, Iran admitted supplying Hamas with the technology to produce Fajr-5. The missile has a range of 75 kilometers, or 45 miles. The range of the Nazeat-10 missiles is about 100 kilometers, or 62 miles.

Iran regularly holds maneuver to test and promote its military power.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Mar 13 - 12:09 PM

North Korea has carried out a drill using live artillery near its disputed border with the South, according to official media.
The exercise was personally supervised by leader Kim Jong Un, who has issued a series of inflammatory threats against South Korea and the U.S. in recent days.
The drill is the latest sign of worryingly high tensions between the neighbours after North Korea cancelled the ceasefire signed at the end of the Korean War.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 15 Mar 13 - 03:21 AM

If we do very little, to nothing, Iran and Saudi Arabia will be going at it..directly and/or indirectly, (they are ideological/religious enemies)....and guess what?....the American public will get behind drilling here..that way the Kissinger deal would be broken, and nobody would give a fuck.
If China REALLY wanted Korea to cool it, that would have already happened, so that deal will be sealed through economic advantage, to China...though we may be forced to pay or export shit to Korea....just so we have to borrow more from China....so China will be OWED the newly drilled oil, because we're drilling here...and Saudi Arabia got burned...but they're having to deal with Iran, and what would appear to be their 'domestic unrest'(Sponsored by Iran.......and the CIA...but VERY discreetly)....Shhhh!!

Got that????

...and the beat goes on....

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Mar 13 - 09:39 PM

Here is an extremely interesting article from yesterday's Toronto Star, written by Thomas Walkom, the Star's national affairs columnist. It made me aware of some history from the Korean War that I didn't know about, and that I suspect almost all North Americans don't know about...because their media hasn't bothered to tell them.

Read on:

It's Time to End the Korea War


Being even-handed and factual, the article points out the misdeeds of both sides in that war, the various betrayals of signed agreements that have occurred, South Korea's refusal to sign on to the original armistace that was signed by North Korea, the USA, and China. This article goes a long way toward explaining why both sides have problems with each other and legitimate concerns, and why the only sane thing to do is properly address those concerns and work for peace.

I quote from the article:

"The ceasefire of 1953 was not a deal between North and South Korea. South Korean president Syngman Rhee refused to sign on.

Rather it was an arrangement signed by commanders of the main military forces at war in the peninsula — the Americans on behalf of the United Nations Command (which included Canadian troops) and the North Koreans on behalf of their own soldiers and so-called Chinese volunteers.

The armistice set the demarcation line between territory controlled by the North Koreans and territory controlled by the UN Command.

That dividing line was supposed to be temporary. The armistice called for negotiations to begin within three months on a comprehensive political settlement for the peninsula.

And it called for all foreign troops — UN and Chinese — to be eventually withdrawn.

The Chinese did withdraw, as did the Canadians, British and most other UN forces. But the Americans, at the behest of the South Korean government they had set up, stayed. They are still there.

In violation of the armistice, the U.S. arbitrarily set the maritime boundary between the two Koreas. Between 1958 and 1991, the U.S. armed its forces in South Korea with nuclear weapons, another violation.

So when Pyongyang says, as it did this week, that the terms of that armistice have been breached by the UN side, it is not entirely inaccurate."

Walkom assigns blame to both sides in various ways in his article, but what really intrigued me was what he said above, because it's not what our mainstream media have been making us aware of since the 1950s. They've conveniently chosen instead to focus on other matters instead and they've swept what Walkom talks about under the carpet...meaning under the public radar, so to speak. They did this for propaganda purposes, certainly not for any purposes of genuinely informing the public in North America.

Our news does not exist to inform. It exists to manufacture consent, and to establish who our "evil enemies" are so we'll support wars, if those wars are deemed "necessary" by our masters, meaning the people who make those decisions.

I'm sure this is also true in North Korea and China. Obviously. Which is to say...their leaders are approximately as ruthless, self-interested, and dishonest as ours are.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,999
Date: 16 Mar 13 - 02:41 PM

The problem with nuclear weapons is that hitting your enemy with them is fairly easy because anywhere you hit causes lotsa carnage. The problem is explaining to your friends later why all the shit you blew up is landing in their backyards.

NK's leader is 'different' and in some ways makes me feel edgy, kinda like watching a very young child put his hand into a blender while keeping his other hand real near the pulse button.

I think Kim Jong-un needs a father-figure in his life and I think Obama missed a great opportunity to talk basketball with him and if not become a father figure at least become an older brother.

Interesting that NK has become the enemy while the threat remains elsewhere.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Mar 13 - 12:44 PM

(Reuters) - Iran has significantly stepped up military support to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in recent months, solidifying its position alongside Russia as the government's lifeline in an increasingly sectarian civil war, Western diplomats said.

Iranian weapons continue to pour into Syria from Iraq but also increasingly along other routes, including via Turkey and Lebanon, in violation of a U.N. arms embargo on Iran, Western officials told Reuters on condition of anonymity. Iraqi and Turkish officials denied the allegations.

Iran's acceleration of support for Assad suggests the Syrian war is entering a new phase in which Iran may be trying to end the battlefield stalemate by redoubling its commitment to Assad and offering Syria's increasingly isolated government a crucial lifeline, the envoys said.

It also highlights the growing sectarian nature of the conflict, diplomats say, with Iranian arms flowing to the Shi'ite militant group Hezbollah. That group is increasingly active in Syria in support of Assad's forces, envoys say.

Alireza Miryousefi, spokesman for Iran's U.N. mission, responded to a request for a comment by saying, "We believe Syria does not need any military help from Iran."

Syria's U.N. ambassador, Bashar Ja'afari, had no specific comments on the matter.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Mar 13 - 08:51 AM

SEOUL, South Korea (AP) — Raising tensions with South Korea yet again, North Korea cut a military hotline that has been essential in operating the last major symbol of inter-Korean cooperation: an industrial complex in the North that employs hundreds of workers from the South.
There was no immediate word about what cutting one of the few remaining official North-South links would mean for South Korean workers who were at the Kaesong industrial complex. When the link was last cut, in 2009, many South Koreans were stranded in the North.
The hotline shutdown is the latest of many threats and provocative actions from North Korea, which is angry over U.S.-South Korean military drills and recent U.N. sanctions punishing it for its Feb. 12 nuclear test. In a statement announcing the shutdown, the North repeated its claim that war may break out any moment.
Outside North Korea, Pyongyang's actions are seen in part as an effort to spur dormant diplomatic talks to wrest outside aid, and to strengthen internal loyalty to young leader Kim Jong Un and build up his military credentials.
South Korean officials said that about 750 South Koreans were in Kaesong on Wednesday, and that the two Koreas had normal communications earlier in the day over the hotline when South Korean workers traveled back and forth to the factory park as scheduled.
Workers at Kaesong could also be contacted directly by phone from South Korea on Wednesday.
A South Korean worker for Pyxis, a company that produces jewelry cases at Kaesong, said in a phone interview that he was worried about a possible delay in production if cross-border travel is banned again.
"That would make it hard for us to bring in materials and ship out new products," said the worker, who wouldn't provide his name because of company rules.
The worker, who has been in Kaesong since Monday, said he wasn't scared.
"It's all right. I've worked and lived with tension here for eight years now. I'm used to it," he said.
Pyongyang's action was announced in a message that North Korea's chief delegate to inter-Korean military talks sent to his South Korean counterpart.
Seoul's Unification Ministry called the move an "unhelpful measure for the safe operation of the Kaesong complex."
North Korea recently cut a Red Cross hotline with South Korea and another with the U.S.-led U.N. command at the border between the Koreas. The Unification Ministry said only three telephone hotlines remain between the North and South, and those are used only for exchanging information about air traffic.
Kaesong is operated in North Korea with South Korean money and know-how and a mostly North Korean work force. It provides badly needed hard currency in North Korea, where many face food shortages.
Other examples of joint inter-Korean cooperation have come and gone. The recently ended five-year tenure of hard-line South Korean President Lee Myung-bak saw North-South relations plunge. Lee ended an essentially no-strings-attached aid policy to the North.
North Korea last cut the Kaesong line in 2009, as a protest to that year's South Korean-U.S. military drills. North Korea refused several times to let South Korean workers commute to and from their jobs, leaving hundreds stranded in North Korea. The country restored the hotline and reopened the border crossing more than a week later, after the drills were over.
Shinwon Group, a South Korean apparel maker with a factory at Kaesong, said it would call its workers on Thursday morning to check on them. Shinwon's South Korean employees stay in Kaesong for two weeks before returning to Seoul. Workers at Kaesong talked by phone with the Seoul office Wednesday morning, but there was nothing unusual about the call, said spokesman Lee Eun-suk.
Lee said that the last time the phone line was cut off between Kaesong and Seoul, it was "inconvenient" but did not affect business.
North Korea's actions have been accompanied by threatening rhetoric, including a vow to launch a nuclear strike against the United States and a repeat of its nearly two-decade-old threat to reduce Seoul to a "sea of fire." Outside weapons analysts, however, have seen no proof that the country has mastered the technology needed to build a nuclear warhead small enough to mount on a missile.
In a sign of heightened anxiety, Seoul briefly bolstered its anti-infiltration defense posture after a South Korean border guard hurled a hand grenade and opened fire at a moving object several hours before sunrise Wednesday. South Korean troops later searched the area but found no signs of infiltration, and officials believe the guard may have seen a wild animal, according to Seoul's Defense Ministry.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 Mar 13 - 09:31 AM

North Korea is "not a paper tiger" and its repeated threats to attack South Korea and the U.S. should not be dismissed as "pure bluster," a U.S. official has warned.
On Friday, the isolated communist state put its rocket units on standby to attack U.S. military bases in South Korea and the Pacific, Reuters reported, after two nuclear-capable stealth bombers flew from Missouri to drop inert munitions on a range in South Korea as part of a major military exercise.
North Korea's leader Kim Jong Un "judged the time has come to settle accounts with the U.S. imperialists in view of the prevailing situation" at a midnight meeting of top generals, official KCNA news agency said, according to Reuters.

The U.S. official, commenting about the latest threats from the North, emphasized the danger posed by its military and the unpredictable nature of its 30-year-old leader.
"North Korea is not a paper tiger so it wouldn't be smart to dismiss its provocative behavior as pure bluster. What's not clear right now is how much risk Kim Jong Un is willing to run to show the world and domestic elites that he's a tough guy," said the official, who asked not to be named. "His inexperience is certain -- his wisdom is still very much in question."
There were a mass demonstration in support of Kim involving tens of thousands of people in the main square of North Korean capital Pyongyang Friday, The Associated Press reported. Placards read "Let's crush the puppet traitor group" and "Let's rip the puppet traitors to death!"
'War for national liberation'
The state-controlled KCNA also published an article that said the "opportunity for peacefully settling the DPRK-U.S. relations is no longer available as the U.S. opted for staking its fate. Consequently, there remains only the settlement of accounts by a physical means." DPRK stands for Democratic People's Republic of Korea, the North's official name.
Slideshow: Glimpses into the hermit kingdom of North Korea

"A battle to be fought by the DPRK against the U.S. will become a war for national liberation to defend the sovereignty and dignity of the country and, at the same time, a revolutionary war to defend the human cause of independence and the justice of the international community," the article by "news analyst" Minju Joson said.
South Korea's Yonhap news agency quoted a South Korean military official as saying that there had been "increased movement of vehicles and forces" at missile launch sites in the North. "We are closely watching possibilities of missile launches," the unnamed official said.
North Korea routinely issues hostile statements but analysts have noted recent remarks have become more belligerent. In December, the North carried out a long-range rocket test and then detonated a nuclear bomb in a test earlier this year.

North Korea's young leader Kim Jong-un has issued almost daily threats, including the threat of nuclear strikes on Washington, D.C., and Seoul. In addition, Pyongyang has put its troops on combat readiness, warning that war "may break out at any moment." NBC's Ian Williams reports.
At a daily news briefing Friday, China's Foreign Ministry Spokesman Hong Lei said China was calling for an easing of tensions.
But some fear the situation could be getting out of control.
"It seems that Kim Jong Un is in the driving seat of a train that has been taken on a joyride," Lee Min-yong, an expert on North Korea at Sookmyung Women's University in Seoul, told Reuters.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 Mar 13 - 09:40 AM

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said on Thursday that North Korea's provocative actions and belligerent tone had "ratcheted up the danger" on the Korean peninsula, but he denied that the United States had aggravated the situation by flying stealth bombers to the region.
"We have to take seriously every provocative, bellicose word and action that this new young leader has taken so far" since coming to power, Hagel told a Pentagon news conference, referring to Kim Jong-un.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 Mar 13 - 09:42 AM

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Iran, Syria and North Korea on Friday prevented the adoption of the first international treaty to regulate the $70 billion global conventional arms trade, complaining that it was flawed and failed to ban weapons sales to rebel groups.
To get around the blockade, British U.N. Ambassador Mark Lyall Grant sent the draft treaty to Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and asked him on behalf of Mexico, Australia and a number of others to put it to a swift vote in the General Assembly.
U.N. diplomats said the 193-nation General Assembly could put the draft treaty to a vote as early as Tuesday.
"A good, strong treaty has been blocked," said Britain's chief delegate, Joanne Adamson. "Most people in the world want regulation and those are the voices that need to be heard."
"This is success deferred," she added.
The head of the U.S. delegation, Assistant Secretary of State Thomas Countryman, told a group of reporters, "We look forward to this treaty being adopted very soon by the United Nations General Assembly." He declined to predict the result of a vote but said it would be a "substantial majority" in favor.
U.N. member states began meeting last week in a final push to end years of discussions and hammer out a binding international treaty to end the lack of regulation over cross-border conventional arms sales.
Arms control activists and human rights groups say a treaty is needed to halt the uncontrolled flow of arms and ammunition that they say fuels wars, atrocities and rights abuses.
Delegates to the treaty-drafting conference said on Wednesday they were close to a deal to approve the treaty, but cautioned that Iran and other countries might attempt to block it. Iran, Syria and North Korea did just that, blocking the required consensus for it to pass.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had told Iran's Press TV that Tehran supported the arms trade treaty. But Iranian U.N. Ambassador Mohammad Khazaee told the conference that he could not accept the treaty in its current form.
"The achievement of such a treaty has been rendered out of reach due to many legal flaws and loopholes," he said. "It is a matter of deep regret that genuine efforts of many countries for a robust, balanced and non-discriminatory treaty were ignored."
One of those flaws was its failure to ban sales of weapons to groups that commit "acts of aggression," ostensibly referring to rebel groups, he said. The current draft does not ban transfers to armed groups but says all arms transfers should be subjected to rigorous risk and human rights assessments first.
'HELD HOSTAGE'
Syrian Ambassador Bashar Ja'afari echoed the Iranian concerns, saying he also objected to the fact that it does not prohibit weapons transfers to rebel groups.
"Unfortunately our national concerns were not taken into consideration," he said. "It can't be accepted by my country."
North Korea's delegate voiced similar complaints, suggesting it was a discriminatory treaty: "This (treaty) is not balanced."
Iran, which is under a U.N. arms embargo over its nuclear program, is eager to ensure its arms imports and exports are not curtailed, diplomats said. Syria is in a two-year-old civil war and hopes Russian and Iranian arms keep flowing in, they added.
North Korea is also under a U.N. arms embargo due to its nuclear weapons and missile programs.
Russia and China made clear they would not have blocked it but voiced serious reservations about the text and its failure to get consensus. A Russian delegate told the conference that Moscow would have to think hard about signing it if it were approved. India, Pakistan and others complained that the treaty favors exporters and creates disadvantages for arms importers.
If adopted by the General Assembly, the pact will need to be signed and ratified by at least 50 states to enter into force.
Several diplomats and human rights groups that have lobbied hard in favor of the treaty complained that the requirement of consensus for the pact to pass was something that the United States insisted on years ago. That rule gave every U.N. member state the ability to veto the draft treaty.
"The world has been held hostage by three states," said Anna Macdonald, an arms control expert at humanitarian agency Oxfam. "We have known all along that the consensus process was deeply flawed and today we see it is actually dysfunctional."
"Countries such as Iran, Syria and DPRK (North Korea) should not be allowed to dictate to the rest of the world how the sale of weapons should be regulated," she added.
The point of an arms trade treaty is to set standards for all cross-border transfers of conventional weapons. It would also create binding requirements for states to review all cross-border arms contracts to ensure arms will not be used in human rights abuses, terrorism or violations of humanitarian law.
The main reason the arms trade talks took place at all is that the United States - the world's biggest arms exporter - reversed U.S. policy on the issue after President Barack Obama was first elected and decided in 2009 to support an arms treaty.
Washington demanded that the conference be run on the basis of consensus because it wanted to be able to block any treaty that undermined the U.S. constitutional right to bear arms, a sensitive political issue in the United States. Countryman said the draft treaty did not undermine U.S. rights.
The National Rifle Association, a powerful U.S. pro-gun lobbying group, opposes the treaty and has vowed to fight to prevent its ratification if it reaches Washington. The NRA says the treaty would undermine domestic gun-ownership rights.
The American Bar Association, an attorneys' lobby group, has said that the treaty would not impact the right to bear arms.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: bobad
Date: 29 Mar 13 - 08:48 PM

This could get bad.

North Korea now says it is in 'state of war' with South Korea
By Agence France-Presse
Friday, March 29, 2013 20:28 EDT

North Korea announced Saturday that it had entered a "state of war" with South Korea and would deal with every inter-Korean issue accordingly.

"As of now, inter-Korea relations enter a state of war and all matters between the two Koreas will be handled according to wartime protocol," the North said in a joint statement attributed to all government bodies and institutions.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: ollaimh
Date: 30 Mar 13 - 09:41 AM

maybe no one. just maybe it's time for America to stop the military adventures. they only make the most neanderthal regressive corporations rich and impoverish the people with un repayable debt.

let dream a bit. America never overthrows mozedegh, and iran never has the shah's torture state. rather iran becomes a stong social democratic nation and never has the ayatollah, not the republican guard. gee then the use never has to get involved in Iraq and Afghanistan.

let china deal with north korea, and let iran work out it's own problems, and eventually their hate for American interference in their country will subside.

the leaders America thows up are not well enough informed about the world to make usefull decisions. the intervention in iran, and Iraq backfired. the only place where they still are effective at military intervention is latin America and that only to establish genocidal torture states. how abou intervention in pennslyvannia to rebuild manufacturing, or in Arizona and surrounding states to protect and conserve water resources, and maybe an intervention to bring war criminals to the world court, whether allies , americans or enemies.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Mar 13 - 09:42 AM

Looks like bruce has contracted an acute case of postarrhoea.

Paregoric may be in order.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Mar 13 - 05:29 PM

Interesting that NK has become the enemy while the threat remains elsewhere.

Hmmm....... kinda like Iraq. And Afghanistan. And Vietnam. And.......

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 01 Apr 13 - 08:27 AM

refresh

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Sawzaw
Date: 08 Mar 14 - 08:54 PM

Israel has seized a ship carrying advanced Iranian weapons made in Syria that was heading towards Gaza.

BBC
The Panamanian-flagged vessel was boarded by Israeli naval commandos in the Red Sea off the coast of Sudan, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) said.

They found M-302 surface-to-surface missiles that were flown to Iran before being loaded onto the ship, it added.

Hamas, the militant Palestinian Islamist movement that governs Gaza, strenuously denied any involvement.

It accused Israel of concocting a story to "justify the blockade" of the coastal territory.

Israel tightly controls its border with Gaza, restricting what is allowed in for what it says are reasons crucial to its security. It also maintains a naval blockade. Egypt blockades Gaza's southern border.

Critics say the blockade is tantamount to collective punishment.
'Unaware of cargo'

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the shipment was a "clandestine operation" by Iran, and added that the weapons would have been used against Israel.
Map

The IDF said it had tracked the weapons for several months as they were flown from Damascus to Tehran and then taken to a port in southern Iran.

From there, it added, they were placed onto a civilian vessel, the KLOS-C, which sailed to Iraq, where containers of cement were added. The ship was eventually intercepted while on its way to Sudan.

The vessel is being brought to the Israeli port of Eilat, where the 17-member crew will be questioned and the weapons unloaded.

IDF spokesman Lt Col Peter Lerner said the crew had appeared to be unaware of their cargo and were not suspects.

The BBC's Yolande Knell in Jerusalem says Israeli television is showing footage of what appear to be commandos inspecting a large rocket in a ship's hold.

The IDF noted that this was not the first ship smuggling arms that it had stopped, but that it was "distinguished by the lethality and quality of its cargo".

News of the rockets being seized comes during the visit of Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to the US.

Israel has accused Iran of arming groups such as Hamas and Lebanon's Hezbollah.

More than 60 rockets fired from the Gaza Strip have hit Israel since the start of last year, Israel says.

Hamas denies that it has fired any rockets since a 2012 ceasefire agreement with Israel, with other Gaza-based groups claiming responsibility.

However, Israel says it hold Hamas responsible for any attacks from Gaza and has repeatedly launched air strikes, causing several deaths of militants and civilians.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: bobad
Date: 23 Aug 14 - 08:42 AM

Iran will not give UN nuclear inspectors access to a military base outside Tehran that they have been seeking to visit since 2005, Defense Minister Hossein Dehgan said on Saturday.

Read more: Iran refuses IAEA access to Parchin base | The Times of Israel http://www.timesofisrael.com/iran-refuses-iaea-access-to-parchin-base/#ixzz3BDTr6vlm

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Dec 15 - 10:35 AM

"UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The medium-range Emad rocket that Iran tested on Oct. 10 was a ballistic missile capable of delivering a nuclear warhead, which makes it a violation of a United Nations Security Council resolution, a team of sanctions monitors said in a confidential new report.

"On the basis of its analysis and findings the Panel concludes that Emad launch is a violation by Iran of paragraph 9 of Security Council resolution 1929," the panel said in its report.

"

http://news.yahoo.com/exclusive-irans-oct-10-missile-test-violated-u-141351540.html

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Dec 15 - 10:54 AM

You'd know all about violations of UN resolutions, wouldn't you Bruce? Your poster boys leading (or misleading) the Israel government can give you lessons.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Dec 15 - 11:05 AM

Saul Alinskys rules for radicals:
RULE 5: "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon."
Men?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Dec 15 - 11:39 AM

Has Israel ever violated a Security Council Resolution, like this one?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Greg F.
Date: 15 Dec 15 - 11:45 AM

If ya gotta ask, Professor, there's little point in anyone responding.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Dec 15 - 11:46 AM

So no then.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Greg F.
Date: 15 Dec 15 - 01:03 PM

Well, Profssor, since you are intellectually and constitutionally unable to do research for yourself, this one time, I''ll start you off. Plenty more where this came from.

http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2010/01/27/rogue-state-israeli-violations-of-u-n-security-council-resolutions/

http://www.israellawresourcecenter.org/internationallaw/studyguides/sgil3i.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Dec 15 - 01:18 PM

Anti-Semitism in the UN

UN, Israel & Anti-Semitism

Israel at the UN
A History of Bias and Progress

Australia is right to challenge the UN's anti-Israel bias

UN chief admits bias against Israel

Continuing Anti-Israel Bias at UN

End the Israel-bashing at the United Nations

The UN and Israel: A History of Discrimination

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Dec 15 - 01:26 PM

So many people got it so wrong in this thread. Most of the rest used the thread to post news agency releases without additional comment. I note that BeardedBruce "agreed" with Little Hawk four years ago that they both wanted peace, justice, freedom and happiness for everyone. Unfortunately, he failed to complete the sentence, leaving out the two crucial words "except Palestinians".

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Dec 15 - 01:29 PM

A secret U.S. policy has blocked immigration investigators from reviewing the social media messages of all foreigners applying for U.S. visas - including that of San Bernardino terrorist Tashfeen Malik - it has emerged.

The revelation comes after U.S. officials learned that Malik, who received a fiancee's visa last May, posted extensive social messages the FBI said included talk of Jihad and martyrdom.

John Cohen, a former acting under-secretary at DHS for intelligence and analysis, told ABC News that immigration officials were not allowed to 'use or review social media as part of the screening process' when he was there last year.

ABC reported that one current and one former senior counter-terrorism official confirmed Cohen's account of the refusal of the Department of Homeland Security to change its policy.  

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Dec 15 - 02:43 PM

I rest my case.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Dec 15 - 03:28 PM

The SC resolutions are directed at both sides of conflicts involving Israel, not just Israel, typically demanding a cessation of hostilities, observance of cease fires, and such.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Dec 15 - 03:32 PM

So secret that a loser on Mudcat has heard of it.

nothing to see here except bigotry towards Muslims from some idiot safe from reality in Canada and his cheerleader in Hertford.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 15 Dec 15 - 06:28 PM

Safe from reality inCanada , very stupid comment, if I may be allowed to say so. but, ignorance should never e underestimated!

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Dec 15 - 07:15 PM

Hmm. I never want to see threads shut down, but let's see if Islamophobia gets a better run than challenges to Christian proselytising.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Dec 15 - 07:53 PM

And more of the same from you.......sigh!

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Dec 15 - 05:55 AM

Philosophical discussions generally consist of productive debate in which two or more people attempt to rationally argue for different sides of a question. They each try to think up and explain a logical argument in support of their position while constructively trying to offer logical rebuttals of the other person's position. Though called arguments, the philosophers generally have a lot of respect for each other and enjoy having the discussion in a friendly tone. In fact, it becomes very difficult to have a worthwhile philosophical discussion without a lot of respectfulness and friendliness. 

Unfortunately, sometimes one person may use an ad hominem argument. An ad hominem argument consists of replying to a person's argument by merely attacking the character of the person making the argument. An ad hominem argument is also called a personal attack or an irrelevant insult. For example, if Joe claims that the sky is blue, Bob would be making an ad hominem argument if he responded by saying, "No, it isn't because you are an ugly moron." 

An ad hominem is a fallacy, and it is illogical. Worse yet, it may cause the discussion to break down into an unproductive name-calling contest. 

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Dec 15 - 09:11 AM

Twenty-one Senate Democrats have asked President Obama to not ignore Iran's second ballistic missile test, which was conducted last month.

"If there are no consequences for this violation, Iran's leaders will certainly also question the willingness of the international community to respond to violations of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and UN Security Council Resolution 2231," the Dems note in the letter sent to the president today.

It was signed by Ranking Member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Ben Cardin (D-Md.) as well as Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Chris Coons (D-Del.), Gary Peters (D-Mich.), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.), Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Bob Casey (D-Pa.), Mark Warner (D-Va.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.), and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.).

....

"The November test is Iran's second recent violation of UNSCR 1929, which clearly states 'Iran shall not undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using ballistic missile technology.' Clearly, the Security Council should take appropriate enforcement action against Iran in the face of this violation. On this matter, we recognize and appreciate United Nations Ambassador Samantha Power's ongoing efforts to build support to enforce consequences for the October 10 ballistic missile test by referring the issue to the Iran Sanctions Committee and advocating for a forceful response by the UN Security Council. However, in the time it took the Panel of Experts to make a determination on the first violation, Iran tested another ballistic missile."

The Senate Democrats told Obama that "in the absence of a UN Security Council commitment to enforcing UNSCR 1929, we request that you take action unilaterally, or in coordination with our European allies."

"Such action is essential to make clear to Iran's leaders that there will be consequences for future violations of UN Security Council Resolutions and that the United States reserves the right under the JCPOA to take unilateral action in response to this and other significant actions by Iran in the areas of ballistic missile development, terrorism and human rights."

At a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing today, Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), another "no" vote on the Iran deal, told State Department officials that there's "a very clear sense – and I hope I'm wrong – that what we have here is a permissive environment."

"What we got really was a process in the JCPOA that gave Iran the easy out by really just simply answering questions as they wanted to without really fully coming clean," Menendez said.

Menendez was told that the administration is "seriously considering" a response.


https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/2015/12/18/21-senate-dems-to-obama-take-action-over-iran-missile-tests

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Dec 15 - 09:59 AM

" suspect multiple identities here."
Me too - I wonder if BB watched the 'Storyville' programme on television a couple of weeks ago based on recorded interviews carried out by two kibbutzniks, Amos Oz and Avraham Shapira, with Israeli soldiers who had taken part in the Six Day War - I doubt it - not his sort of thing.
The recordings were made within two weeks of the war and around a dozen of the soldiers were interviewed, had what they had said played back to them and were asked to comment.
The original interviews had participants describing the massacre of Arab prisoners and prisoners being being forced to bury those executed and then being executed themselves.
They described the triumphant army routinely destroying Arab settlements that had taken no part in the war - one soldier said it left him with a greater understanding of what it had felt like to experience The Holocaust and two others made the same comparison between the Six Day War and what had happened at the hands of the Nazis.
The triumphalism and persecution that went with the taking of Jerusalem was contrasted with the propaganda newsreel showing happy elderly Arabs smoking hookahs and peacefully sunning themselves.
One of the programme makers, Israeli writer, Amos Oz, stated at the end that the soldiers (which included himself) had told it the way it was, without exaggeration.
The programme is REVIEWED HERE
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Dec 15 - 10:17 AM

More about decent peoples' opinions about GregF and Steve's best buds...


"The UN General Assembly criticized Iran and condemned North Korea over human rights violations in resolutions adopted by the 193-nation body."



http://news.yahoo.com/iran-north-korea-come-under-fire-un-over-031611248.html

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 Dec 15 - 10:19 AM

Virginia district cancels school over Islamic lesson
Friday, December 18, 2015

VERONA, Va. (AP) — Schools in a Shenandoah Valley county in Virginia were closed Friday and a weekend holiday concert and athletic events were canceled amid an angry backlash about a school lesson involving the Islamic faith.

Augusta County school officials were alarmed by the volume and tone of the complaints, including some from outside Virginia, according to news reports. In response, additional police were stationed at county schools Thursday.

The outcry in Augusta County comes against the backdrop of a steady drumbeat of anti-Muslim rhetoric by politicians and a nationwide wave of hate crimes targeting Muslims, including physical assaults and acts of vandalism and arson at mosques and Muslim-owned businesses.

--------------
PS:

Good to have you back, BSBruce! The slime content here has been woefully inadequate of late.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Dec 15 - 10:23 AM

GregF,

Thanks for the info- now look at the figures for hate crimes and note the significant majority are against Jews- That YOU have encouraged.



BTW, whenever you make my name BSBruce I will make yours Greg the rat fucker.

Seems like a FAIR EXCHANGE. You have never demonstrated that any of my statements or presented facts were false, just that YOU did not like them.



The truth is out!

From: Jim Carroll - PM
Date: 18 Dec 15 - 10:10 AM
...we really are too much of a bunch of thick and ignorant "Muppet lefties" ...

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Dec 15 - 10:31 AM

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,092 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-biased offenses showed:

    58.2 percent were anti-Jewish.

    16.3 percent were anti-Islamic (Muslim).

    6.1 percent were anti-Catholic.

    4.7 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.

    2.6 percent were anti-Protestant.

    1.2 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

    11.0 percent were anti-other (unspecified) religion. (Based on Table 1.)

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2014/topic-pages/incidentsandoffenses_final

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Dec 15 - 11:18 AM

"All checkable."Disagreeing" with verifiable facts is called denial."
Just what I think - a bit overwhelmed by your response to self-confessed Israeli atrocities
You are flooding this thread with pesonal abuse and Islamophobia and you are in denial of the fact that Israeli right-wing militancy is not only the cause of a good deal of what is happening in the world today, but it also poses one of the greatest threats with its toxic mix of religious zealotry, it policy of expansionism into the lands of others and its possession of nuclear weapons - heads down lads - more abuse on the way
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Dec 15 - 05:01 PM

Name calling is a cognitive bias and a technique to promote propaganda. Propagandists use the name-calling technique to incite fears or arouse positive prejudices with the intent that invoked fear (based on fearmongering tactics) or trust will encourage those that read, see or hear propaganda to construct a negative opinion, in respect to the former, or a positive opinion, with respect to the latter, about a person, group, or set of beliefs or ideas that the propagandist would wish the recipients to believe. The method is intended to provoke conclusions and actions about a matter apart from an impartial examinations of the facts of the matter. When this tactic is used instead of an argument, name-calling is thus a substitute for rational, fact-based arguments against an idea or belief, based upon its own merits, and becomes an argumentum ad hominem.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Dec 15 - 05:44 PM

"Schools in a Shenandoah Valley county in Virginia were closed Friday and a weekend holiday concert and athletic events were canceled amid an angry backlash about a school lesson involving the Islamic faith"

Are you saying no lesson about Islam should be questioned or complained about?

Not to describe the lesson is an omission of facts.

What was the lesson?

What lessons do they teach in Islamic schools about the Christian faith?

Please elucidate and demonstrate your intelligence.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Dec 15 - 05:46 PM

Yeah, right. In your own words now... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Dec 15 - 05:47 PM

That was intended for the 05.01 nonsense.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Dec 15 - 06:32 AM

I will not join this one, but I have seen your programme Jim and kept it for reference.
I do not fully agree with your assessment of it.
I expect we will end up discussing it some time.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Dec 15 - 06:39 AM

"I do not fully agree with your assessment of it."
'Course you don't Keith - why would you?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Dec 15 - 07:22 AM

It is clear that the name calling bullies here are not interested in logic or intellect.
KUALA LUMPUR, Aug 4, 2015 — Tan Sri Harussani Zakaria reminded federal ministers yesterday against issuing statements based on logic and intellect when it comes to Islam, claiming that the intellect is influenced by desires and subsequently susceptible to the devil.

In a report carried by Malay daily Sinar Harian, the Perak mufti also warned Muslim ministers against deriding and belittling Islamic laws, as they risk breaching their oath of loyalty that was made in the name of Allah.

"I advise them not to go overboard. Islam is based on faith… Don't make any remarks based on the intellect or logic because they are laws of Allah," Harussani said.

"The intellect is governed by desires and it is influence by shaitan (satan). Don't be ruled by desires and rudderless comments," he added, using the name of the Devil in Islamic lore.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Dec 15 - 07:42 AM

School chief Shahid Akmal told an undercover Mirror reporter that "white women have the least amount of morals", white children were "lazy" and that British people have "colonial blood".

Akmal claimed that women were "emotionally weaker" than men and that their role was to look after children and the home.

He defended jailing or exiling gays and adulterers under Sharia Law as a "moral position to hold".

Until last week, Akmal was the chairman of governors at Nansen Primary School in Birmingham, where music was banned and inspectors found pupils were not sufficiently protected from radicalisation.

The hardliner revealed he has plans to set up a series of after-school tuition centres to instil "our morals and our values and our principles" in impressionable youngsters.

Over a series of meetings with our reporter, Akmal made a string of extraordinary statements and defended Brits fighting in Syria and Iraq as "freedom fighters".

In a defiant attack, Akmal claimed the Government wanted to keep Muslims "suppressed" so they are easier to control.

Our exposé comes after a leaked official report found there was a "sustained, coordinated agenda to impose segregationist attitudes and practices of a hardline, politicised strain of Sunni Islam" on children

A scathing assessment from schools inspectors Ofsted found that Akmal's board of governors were "overly controlling".

Music had been removed from the timetable and children were "not prepared for life in modern Britain".

Posing as a wealthy Asian ­businessman, our reporter approached Akmal's training firm Exquisitus as a potential client.

Over a number of coaching sessions in London hotels, Akmal revealed his deep hostility to the modern British way of life. He revealed: "My grandfather refused to let us speak English at home. "He said, 'You leave English at the door. When you come inside you speak your own language'.

A scathing assessment from schools inspectors Ofsted found that Akmal's board of governors were "overly controlling". Music had been removed from the timetable and children were "not prepared for life in modern Britain".

Posing as a wealthy Asian ­businessman, our reporter approached Akmal's training firm Exquisitus as a potential client. Over a number of coaching sessions in London hotels, Akmal revealed his deep hostility to the modern British way of life.

He argued that girls should be taught skills such as cooking and sewing while boys should be taught trades like construction and mechanics. Akmal attacked women who became "high flying" politicians: "She has to sacrifice her family, she has to sacrifice her children, she has to sacrifice her husband, all in the name of equality. "And there are so many marriages that have broken up because of this." He admitted that women can be as intelligent as men but added "emotionally women are much weaker... they are not on the same level".

Akmal dismissed a boycott of businesses owned by the Sultan of Brunei over the death penalty in the Middle Eastern country for homosexuality and adultery. He said: "The thing is, it's his right and it's his country, so why shouldn't he?"

Akmal said that homosexuals, adulterers and "fornicators" who have sex outside marriage should be exiled from their community. "The Koranic concept is that anyone who causes disruption in the community, even if you put them in prison, from prison they can continue to cause disruption as well," he said. "So the best thing to do is to actually exile them so that the community can remain solid and united. It's a moral position to hold."

He attacked what he called "man-made" British law as "very confusing" and defended laws "given by God" as "fair even though you may not understand it".

Akmal appeared to defend British Muslims joining rebels in Syria and Iraq, despite official warnings of a terrorism threat when they return to the UK. He said: "The fact that he has gone there to fight, they say that he is supporting terrorists. Because they don't believe in the freedom fight."

He said: "They basically don't want the children to do any better because they will demand education, they will demand better qualifications, they will want to go to Oxford and Cambridge and that's a white only place. "Very few non-whites go there. They want to keep us suppressed. "It's easier to control. If you get ­education you get a mind. When you get a mind, you ask questions. They don't like that."

Birmingham MP Khalid Mahmood said: "This investigation backs what I have been trying to fight against.The hardline ideology which put poison in our classrooms"

The schools had a "narrow Islamic-focused curriculum", with evidence of misogynistic, homophobic and antisemitic teaching material, Wilshaw said. Of the three, the only one to be named is Bordesley Independent School, where inspectors found dirty mattresses and a lack of running water in conditions described as unhygienic and filthy.
Sir Michael Wilshaw said he was concerned organisations received "confusing and unhelpful" advice from the Department of Education that they can continue to operate while applying to register.
In a letter to Education Secretary Nicky Morgan, he warned: "This sends out an entirely wrong message of what the DFE perceives to be acceptable practice".
It is thought around 800 pupils across the country are being taught at these schools, which cater to Muslim communities as well as some other faiths. It is the second time in a month that the Ofsted chief inspector has written to Morgan to express alarm over the issue.
The founders of three unregistered schools in Birmingham could face being jailed after the Education Secretary demanded Ofsted prepares prosecution cases against them.
He reported "serious fire hazards, including a blocked fire escape and obstructed exits" and "inappropriate books and other texts including misogynistic, homophobic and anti-Semitic material".
He said such schools were "a serious and growing threat to the safety and wellbeing of hundreds of children in several English regions". "Ofsted's work to ensure that all maintained and independent schools promote British values is being seriously undermined by the growth of these settings".
EXTREMISTS running Islamic schools could be jailed under new powers of prosecution to be given to schools inspectors. Mrs Morgan said: "Tackling extremism in all its forms is a key priority of this Government and since 2010 I have taken robust steps to tackle unregistered schools and improve safeguarding".

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 19 Dec 15 - 08:01 AM

There are a few million Muslims here. It's easy to find extremism and it is also easy to shut it down. Imams and community leaders normally working with the authorities to do so.

I went to a normal school yet I recall RE lessons where the teacher, who was also a Methodist minister told us that homosexuality was a sin and that a return to biblical judgement was what society needed.

Funnily enough, I thought he was talking shit, even at 12 years old. I assume my many Muslim friends and colleagues had a similar experience. Whilst the hate shit from so called Christians in the western world persists, the evil bastards who use Islam as a tool will have many young disillusioned men with no prospects lining up. After all, what do they have to lose?

Oh. In reply to the op. Korea. Make sure the pilot googles the right Korea though. No one will give a shit and even China will be giggling through their rehearsed outrage.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Dec 15 - 08:04 AM

"It is clear that the name calling bullies here are not interested in logic or intellect."
Nope - they're not interested in Islamophobia gone viral Bruce.
If Islamist terrorism is down to the religion, so are the atrocities carried out in Israel in th name of Judaiam - Bruce (by nay other name, but smelling just as unsavoury)
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Dec 15 - 10:32 AM

so are the atrocities carried out in Israel in th name of Judaiam

There are atrocities being committed in the same region as Israel, but actually in Israel?
Really?
Perhaps you mean the "knife intifada" in Israel, but it is just anti Jew not Judaism.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Dec 15 - 11:45 AM

"Not MY post-"
There goes that cock crowing for the third time again
Bit too much of a coincidence - two Zionist fanatic illiterates on the same forum
Did you know your name occurs nearly 200 times on this thread - that makes it around 100 postings -that's a lorra lorra cultural hatred.
Israel has adopted a policy of blockade and humiliation towards the Arabs, both in Israel and the occupied territories and is in the process of creating an Apartheid state - fairly atrocious to most human beings
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Dec 15 - 12:50 PM

That is disputed Jim, and is anyway not what is understood by an "atrocity."

The knifing of random Jews in the street is an atrocity, and I am sure you would not defend it.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Dec 15 - 01:10 PM

"That is disputed Jim,"
Only by you Keith
Sorry - no intention of indulging your fondness for terrorist states who massacre men women and children non combatants and have no intention of giving you "the oxygen of publicity" you our beloved leader, Mrs T once put it - your total lack of humanity will have to be a matter for you and your conscience.
"The antisemitic Jew hater rears his ugliness again.....puke!"
Never mind - you have your hate-filled troll to keep you warm
"puke" indeed - for you and your friend
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Dec 15 - 01:24 PM

Not just by me Jim

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Dec 15 - 01:39 PM

.....liberal democratic governments would have no dealing with Israel if they believed it was doing that, so not just me.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Dec 15 - 02:09 PM

To call Israel an apartheid state is an expression of ignorance, anti-Semitism, and malice. Israel is by far the most racially mixed and tolerant nation in the entire Muslim Middle East. Arabs, who are about 20% of Israel's population, enjoy, without any exception, the same rights and opportunities in all fields as their Jewish fellow citizens. The total equality of all Israelis is assured in Israel's founding document. All non-Jews (which means primarily Muslim Arabs) have full voting rights. At present, sixteen Arabs sit in Israel's Knesset (parliament). Arabs are represented in Israel's diplomatic service all over the world. Arab students may and do study in all Israeli universities. All children in Israel are entitled to subsidized education until graduation, without any restrictions based on color or religions. In short, Muslim Arabs and other non-Jews are allowed everything that Jews are allowed, everything that non-Whites were not allowed in apartheid South Africa.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Dec 15 - 02:27 PM

"liberal democratic governments would have no dealing with Israel"
You mean the ones that (don''t) deal with China and Saudi Arabia and (don't) sell ammunition, riot control equipment and chemicals to Assad's Syria and (democratic) states like Bahrain and poured down burning petrol on Vietnamese farmers and imprison and torture suspects in Guantanamo (Britain ow fully implicated in this)..... and all the other liberal things that have done down the years.
You are probably the most inhuman individual individual I have ever encountered - you claim to be a 'Christian' debases Christianity as I understand it and has as much to do with real Christianity as does Ake's "Socialism" - both are grotesque claims.
Between you, your conscience (if you have one, which I doubt) and you sick troll friend who, along with his "guest" alter-ego - has posted around 200 messages of racism and hatred this thread alone.
A matched pair, I would say
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Dec 15 - 04:49 PM

Fascinating.
Just pick a subject and give your name. I could write your script for you.

Nice to see braidedbeardedbruce back. I missed laughing at those who know Israel from what they read in newspapers. By the way, I was in Palestine earlier this year. (Looking at ways of using surplus UK medicines to help the oppressed communities.) Do remember to write dangerous bigoted bullshit. I need a good laugh.

zzzzz

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Dec 15 - 07:11 PM

"non-Whites were not allowed in apartheid South Africa."
Would that be the South Africa that Israel attempted to assist to arm itself with nuclear weapons?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Dec 15 - 10:17 PM

Attempted eh, unlike the UK which succeeded in assisting the terrorist Islamic state of Pakistan to arm itself with nuclear weapons.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 20 Dec 15 - 04:21 AM

Goo on Jim! Clock him a fucker!

It isn't the Israel within its borders that is an issue but its dealings with its neighbours. Especially when making neighbouring territory internal in the first place.

The most wicked despicable trick in such discussions is saying that criticism of the Israeli government is anti Semitic. Factually incorrect too if you accept it to be a multicultural blah blah.

The last time I was there, I took photos of that bloody Great Wall they built and are still extending. It seemed to be a more accurate record of my visit than taking photos of orange groves.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Dec 15 - 04:42 AM

"Factually incorrect"
And Antisemitic by the guidelines of what constitutes Antisemitism, generall accepted by the Jewish people - European Union Definition of Antisemitism (EU definition)

New wording from the Zionist site, "Zionisim on the web"
"Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.
However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic."

Accusing critics of Israel of being Antisemitic is simply Antisemitic and Bearded Bruce and his alter-ego "guest" - two for the price of one - are blatent Antisemites.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Dec 15 - 08:23 AM

Jim, you did not challenge anything that I actually said.
It was just factual.
Instead you attack me personally, bringing my faith and humanity into it.

Please just address what people say.
Do not make it personal please.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Dec 15 - 09:33 AM

"Please just address what people say."
Your support of Israeli terrorim of the type we watched on televisio last year is both historic and notorious
I always address what people say Keith - I no longer wish to address you about anything - you don't listen unless it suits your Islamophobic right, extremist wing bigotry.
Please don't speak until you are spoken to - there's a good lad.
I've been asked by Pat to pass on the message that what Israel is doing in the name of the Jews is both disgraceful and a tragedy - and it is not Antisemitic to point that fact out - there, you have it.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Dec 15 - 09:50 AM

I always address what people say Keith

You did not address anything I said. Just personal abuse.

Your support of Israeli terrorim of the type we watched on televisio last year

Again not addressing anything I have actually said. I have never supported terrorism.

your Islamophobic right, extremist wing bigotry.

I have never said anything that could be so construed.
Just personal abuse without addressing anything I have actually said.

I've been asked by Pat (WHO?) to pass on the message that what Israel is doing in the name of the Jews is both disgraceful and a tragedy - and it is not Antisemitic to point that fact out

No accusation of antisemitism from me.
Please just address what people actually say, instead of just making stuff up and ad hominem personal stuff.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Dec 15 - 10:15 AM

Maybe this will strike a "chord" with evil, sinning Mudcat musicians:

BEIRUT: Three years of siege, famine and bombing of his Damascus refugee camp didn't kill celebrated musician Aeham al-Ahmad, but something died inside him the day militants burned his beloved piano in front of his eyes. It was then that Ahmad, whose music had brought consolation, even a bit of joy, to Yarmouk camp's beleaguered residents, decided to join thousands of others and seek refuge in Europe.
"They burned it in April, on my birthday. It was my most cherished possession," Ahmad told AFP, which is following his odyssey online, step-by-step. "The piano wasn't just an instrument. It was like the death of a friend."
For 27-year-old Ahmad, whose songs of hope amid the rubble of Syria's largest Palestinian camp became a social media sensation last year, "it was a very painful moment."
After militants attacked the camp in April, Ahmad's gentle, tentative ray of light was engulfed in flames. He was in a pickup truck, trying to move his piano to nearby Yalda, where his wife and two boys were living, when he was stopped at a militant checkpoint.
"Don't you know that music is haram, forbidden by Islam," a gunman asked, before torching his beloved instrument. Ahmad had stayed in Yarmouk until the day ISIS reduced his battered but precious upright piano to ashes.

Hadith Qudsi 19:5: "The Prophet said that Allah commanded him to destroy all the musical instruments, idols, crosses and all the trappings of ignorance." (The Hadith Qudsi, or holy Hadith, are those in which Muhammad transmits the words of Allah, although those words are not in the Qur'an.)

Muhammad also said:
(1) "Allah Mighty and Majestic sent me as a guidance and mercy to believers and commanded me to do away with musical instruments, flutes, strings, crucifixes, and the affair of the pre-Islamic period of ignorance."
(2) "On the Day of Resurrection, Allah will pour molten lead into the ears of whoever sits listening to a songstress."
(3) "Song makes hypocrisy grow in the heart as water does herbage."

CNN) -- Roars, growls and galloping hooves replaced music Tuesday on some of Mogadishu's radio stations in a protest of a ban on music imposed by Islamic extremists.

Radio Shabelle, along with the stations Tusmo and Hornafrik, were responding to threats from Muslim militant groups that believe music is un-Islamic and want it prohibited.

Mogadishu's 14 private radio stations stopped playing music Tuesday after Hizbul al-Islam, an Islamic extremist group, issued a 10-day ultimatum.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Dec 15 - 10:21 AM

"You did not address anything I said. Just personal abuse."
Now you are stupidly lying -
one more time:
You said
"Not just by me Jim"
and
"liberal democratic governments would have no dealing with Israel"
I replied:
"You mean the ones that (don''t) deal with China and Saudi Arabia and (don't) sell ammunition, riot control equipment and chemicals to Assad's Syria and (democratic) states like Bahrain and poured down burning petrol on Vietnamese farmers and imprison and torture suspects in Guantanamo (Britain ow fully implicated in this)..... and all the other liberal things that have done down the years.
You are probably the most inhuman individual individual I have ever encountered - you claim to be a 'Christian' debases Christianity as I understand it and has as much to do with real Christianity as does Ake's "Socialism" - both are grotesque claims.
Between you, your conscience (if you have one, which I doubt) and you sick troll friend who, along with his "guest" alter-ego - has posted around 200 messages of racism and hatred this thread alone.
A matched pair, I would say"
What the **** is it if it isn't a response - not the one you would have liked, I grant you.
Go away - it's nearly Christmas - try and dig out a modicum of humanity - and take your Antisemitic troll with you..
You really are not worth spending time on
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Dec 15 - 10:53 AM

It really is time troll guests were prevented from starting threads and swamping them with Islamophobia.
One wonders why it's virtually impossible to blow your nose in the presence of a right-wing extremist without having the thread closed down yet this particular troll can flood this one with over 200 hate messages under 'Guest' and probably another under 'Bearded Bruce' .
Happy Christmas - Forum Fairies - see you after the holiday maybe!
Jim Carroll