Lyrics & Knowledge Personal Pages Record Shop Auction Links Radio & Media Kids Membership Help
The Mudcat Cafesj

Post to this Thread - Sort Descending - Printer Friendly - Home


BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?

GUEST 03 Nov 04 - 09:30 AM
Amos 03 Nov 04 - 09:38 AM
Wesley S 03 Nov 04 - 09:54 AM
Paco Rabanne 03 Nov 04 - 09:55 AM
Rapparee 03 Nov 04 - 10:00 AM
saulgoldie 03 Nov 04 - 11:02 AM
GUEST,Larry K 03 Nov 04 - 11:04 AM
mack/misophist 03 Nov 04 - 11:13 AM
GUEST,Desdemona 03 Nov 04 - 11:14 AM
GUEST,Skipy 03 Nov 04 - 11:14 AM
GUEST 03 Nov 04 - 11:22 AM
GUEST,Skippy 03 Nov 04 - 10:13 PM
Little Hawk 03 Nov 04 - 10:24 PM
GUEST,Fat Albert 03 Nov 04 - 10:42 PM
Bobert 03 Nov 04 - 11:24 PM
Little Hawk 03 Nov 04 - 11:34 PM
GUEST,Fat Albert 04 Nov 04 - 11:08 AM
Wolfgang 04 Nov 04 - 11:35 AM
MarkS 04 Nov 04 - 11:50 AM
CarolC 04 Nov 04 - 12:55 PM
Little Hawk 04 Nov 04 - 01:53 PM
Bert 04 Nov 04 - 09:59 PM
Cluin 04 Nov 04 - 10:15 PM
DougR 04 Nov 04 - 10:20 PM
Shanghaiceltic 04 Nov 04 - 10:33 PM
Bobert 04 Nov 04 - 10:35 PM
CarolC 04 Nov 04 - 10:37 PM
Little Hawk 04 Nov 04 - 10:49 PM
GUEST,Fat Albert 05 Nov 04 - 09:07 AM
GUEST,Larry K 05 Nov 04 - 09:28 AM
Dead Horse 05 Nov 04 - 12:09 PM
Zelda_K 05 Nov 04 - 06:59 PM
Cluin 05 Nov 04 - 08:52 PM
Padre 05 Nov 04 - 09:32 PM
GUEST,Davey 05 Nov 04 - 09:41 PM
Little Hawk 05 Nov 04 - 09:54 PM
Little Hawk 05 Nov 04 - 10:31 PM
dianavan 05 Nov 04 - 10:44 PM
GUEST,Nimby 05 Nov 04 - 11:00 PM
Bobert 05 Nov 04 - 11:57 PM
Ebbie 06 Nov 04 - 03:36 PM
CarolC 06 Nov 04 - 05:09 PM
Shanghaiceltic 06 Nov 04 - 06:57 PM
dianavan 06 Nov 04 - 07:06 PM
GUEST,Dorothy 06 Nov 04 - 10:00 PM
CarolC 06 Nov 04 - 10:04 PM
dianavan 06 Nov 04 - 10:26 PM
CarolC 06 Nov 04 - 10:33 PM
Wolfgang 16 Feb 05 - 11:47 AM
McGrath of Harlow 16 Feb 05 - 02:30 PM
Little Hawk 16 Feb 05 - 09:37 PM
Peace 17 Feb 05 - 01:37 AM
Peace 17 Feb 05 - 01:41 AM
dianavan 17 Feb 05 - 03:29 AM
GUEST,McGrath of Harlow 17 Feb 05 - 05:45 AM
GUEST,Davetnova 17 Feb 05 - 06:06 AM
GUEST,Giok 17 Feb 05 - 06:23 AM
GUEST,McGrath of Harlow 17 Feb 05 - 07:14 AM
GUEST,Wolfgang 17 Feb 05 - 08:09 AM
GUEST,Giok 17 Feb 05 - 09:03 AM
DougR 17 Feb 05 - 10:36 PM
Kaleea 17 Feb 05 - 11:46 PM
Peace 18 Feb 05 - 01:16 AM
DougR 18 Feb 05 - 01:36 PM
Peace 18 Feb 05 - 05:02 PM
McGrath of Harlow 18 Feb 05 - 05:15 PM
Donuel 18 Feb 05 - 06:15 PM
beardedbruce 30 Apr 05 - 03:30 AM
robomatic 30 Apr 05 - 01:48 PM
GUEST 01 May 05 - 08:33 PM
Peace 01 May 05 - 08:40 PM
GUEST 01 May 05 - 08:49 PM
beardedbruce 04 May 05 - 09:36 PM
Little Hawk 04 May 05 - 09:49 PM
beardedbruce 04 May 05 - 09:51 PM
Peace 04 May 05 - 10:24 PM
beardedbruce 04 May 05 - 10:40 PM
beardedbruce 04 May 05 - 10:43 PM
Peace 04 May 05 - 10:44 PM
Peace 04 May 05 - 10:48 PM
beardedbruce 04 May 05 - 10:49 PM
Peace 04 May 05 - 10:53 PM
DougR 05 May 05 - 01:14 AM
dianavan 05 May 05 - 01:28 AM
GUEST,brucie 05 May 05 - 12:02 PM
GUEST,CarolC 05 May 05 - 12:44 PM
Peace 05 May 05 - 02:38 PM
beardedbruce 05 May 05 - 02:40 PM
GUEST,CarolC 05 May 05 - 03:16 PM
GUEST,petr 05 May 05 - 08:49 PM
CarolC 05 May 05 - 09:02 PM
Shanghaiceltic 05 May 05 - 09:14 PM
GUEST,Petr 06 May 05 - 02:07 PM
McGrath of Harlow 06 May 05 - 02:19 PM
CarolC 06 May 05 - 02:38 PM
robomatic 06 May 05 - 03:19 PM
Peace 06 May 05 - 07:52 PM
Peace 06 May 05 - 10:48 PM
Peace 07 May 05 - 02:13 AM
Shanghaiceltic 07 May 05 - 06:28 PM
Peace 07 May 05 - 06:34 PM
beardedbruce 09 May 05 - 07:37 PM
beardedbruce 09 May 05 - 10:38 PM
beardedbruce 15 May 05 - 05:59 AM
beardedbruce 01 Jun 05 - 05:12 PM
beardedbruce 01 Jun 05 - 05:15 PM
akenaton 01 Jun 05 - 05:46 PM
robomatic 01 Jun 05 - 06:38 PM
beardedbruce 15 Jun 05 - 09:34 PM
Little Hawk 16 Jun 05 - 12:58 PM
CarolC 16 Jun 05 - 01:05 PM
Little Hawk 16 Jun 05 - 01:08 PM
Shanghaiceltic 16 Jun 05 - 07:28 PM
Little Hawk 16 Jun 05 - 08:32 PM
CarolC 16 Jun 05 - 10:06 PM
Little Hawk 16 Jun 05 - 10:26 PM
GUEST 17 Jun 05 - 03:53 AM
Little Hawk 17 Jun 05 - 07:32 AM
GUEST,Allen 17 Jun 05 - 03:09 PM
beardedbruce 08 Aug 05 - 03:20 PM
GUEST,Blind DRunk in Blind River 09 Aug 05 - 12:09 AM
GUEST,Mrs Olive Whatnoll 09 Aug 05 - 05:23 PM
beardedbruce 11 Aug 05 - 04:51 PM
GUEST,Blind DRunk in Blind River 11 Aug 05 - 07:14 PM
beardedbruce 11 Aug 05 - 07:20 PM
beardedbruce 11 Aug 05 - 07:21 PM
beardedbruce 11 Aug 05 - 07:23 PM
beardedbruce 11 Aug 05 - 07:25 PM
Peace 11 Aug 05 - 07:32 PM
beardedbruce 10 Oct 05 - 03:09 PM
Donuel 11 Oct 05 - 11:40 AM
beardedbruce 11 Nov 05 - 05:09 PM
Little Hawk 11 Nov 05 - 07:02 PM
Teribus 11 Nov 05 - 09:12 PM
Don Firth 11 Nov 05 - 09:23 PM
Little Hawk 11 Nov 05 - 09:27 PM
dianavan 11 Nov 05 - 10:41 PM
Teribus 12 Nov 05 - 07:05 PM
Ebbie 12 Nov 05 - 07:46 PM
GUEST,Buffy 13 Nov 05 - 02:34 AM
Bobert 13 Nov 05 - 09:36 PM
Peace 13 Nov 05 - 09:45 PM
dianavan 13 Nov 05 - 11:48 PM
Teribus 14 Nov 05 - 03:30 AM
beardedbruce 14 Nov 05 - 07:39 AM
dianavan 28 Nov 05 - 12:26 AM
leftydee 28 Nov 05 - 11:55 AM
beardedbruce 21 Dec 05 - 03:16 PM
Lepus Rex 21 Dec 05 - 09:18 PM
dianavan 22 Dec 05 - 03:22 AM
Teribus 22 Dec 05 - 05:11 AM
GUEST,AR282 22 Dec 05 - 05:59 PM
beardedbruce 10 Jan 06 - 05:51 PM
CarolC 10 Jan 06 - 06:16 PM
Little Hawk 10 Jan 06 - 06:49 PM
beardedbruce 10 Jan 06 - 07:22 PM
Little Hawk 10 Jan 06 - 07:34 PM
CarolC 10 Jan 06 - 07:54 PM
CarolC 10 Jan 06 - 07:57 PM
number 6 10 Jan 06 - 08:00 PM
Little Hawk 10 Jan 06 - 08:17 PM
GUEST,Old Guy 10 Jan 06 - 08:28 PM
Amos 10 Jan 06 - 08:41 PM
Little Hawk 10 Jan 06 - 09:18 PM
jaze 11 Jan 06 - 12:43 PM
beardedbruce 11 Jan 06 - 02:34 PM
beardedbruce 11 Jan 06 - 02:40 PM
CarolC 11 Jan 06 - 02:50 PM
CarolC 11 Jan 06 - 02:51 PM
beardedbruce 11 Jan 06 - 02:53 PM
CarolC 11 Jan 06 - 02:57 PM
beardedbruce 11 Jan 06 - 03:01 PM
CarolC 11 Jan 06 - 03:03 PM
GUEST,Crowbar 12 Jan 06 - 12:19 AM
GUEST 12 Jan 06 - 01:47 AM
beardedbruce 12 Jan 06 - 01:48 PM
beardedbruce 12 Jan 06 - 02:45 PM
beardedbruce 18 Jan 06 - 12:00 PM
beardedbruce 19 Jan 06 - 06:57 AM
GUEST 20 Jan 06 - 12:02 AM
woodsie 20 Jan 06 - 09:59 PM
Bobert 20 Jan 06 - 10:28 PM
Alba 20 Jan 06 - 11:05 PM
CarolC 20 Jan 06 - 11:47 PM
GUEST 21 Jan 06 - 05:58 PM
Troll 21 Jan 06 - 10:42 PM
Little Hawk 21 Jan 06 - 10:56 PM
Little Hawk 21 Jan 06 - 11:14 PM
Wolfgang 25 Jan 06 - 08:09 AM
beardedbruce 25 Jan 06 - 09:15 AM
beardedbruce 20 Mar 06 - 10:49 AM
Wolfgang 20 Mar 06 - 12:11 PM
beardedbruce 20 Mar 06 - 03:10 PM
beardedbruce 20 Mar 06 - 04:25 PM
beardedbruce 21 Mar 06 - 10:52 AM
beardedbruce 30 Mar 06 - 10:11 AM
GUEST 31 Mar 06 - 06:27 AM
GUEST,01756 31 Mar 06 - 06:28 AM
GUEST,sorry 31 Mar 06 - 06:29 AM
GUEST,01756 31 Mar 06 - 06:30 AM
beardedbruce 26 Apr 06 - 01:34 PM
Lepus Rex 26 Apr 06 - 05:25 PM
beardedbruce 26 Apr 06 - 05:34 PM
beardedbruce 02 May 06 - 08:36 PM
Little Hawk 02 May 06 - 08:53 PM
beardedbruce 02 May 06 - 08:55 PM
Little Hawk 02 May 06 - 09:28 PM
beardedbruce 02 May 06 - 09:53 PM
Little Hawk 02 May 06 - 10:07 PM
dianavan 02 May 06 - 10:22 PM
beardedbruce 09 May 06 - 06:32 AM
beardedbruce 12 May 06 - 01:52 PM
beardedbruce 12 May 06 - 02:11 PM
beardedbruce 12 May 06 - 02:22 PM
Wolfgang 13 May 06 - 10:05 AM
Donuel 13 May 06 - 10:43 AM
CarolC 13 May 06 - 03:00 PM
CarolC 13 May 06 - 03:05 PM
Teribus 14 May 06 - 06:40 AM
Little Hawk 14 May 06 - 03:42 PM
Wolfgang 15 May 06 - 10:51 AM
Teribus 15 May 06 - 02:28 PM
Little Hawk 15 May 06 - 02:41 PM
Little Hawk 15 May 06 - 02:54 PM
beardedbruce 16 May 06 - 11:16 AM
CarolC 16 May 06 - 12:36 PM
Teribus 16 May 06 - 01:36 PM
Wolfgang 16 May 06 - 03:14 PM
beardedbruce 16 May 06 - 03:29 PM
CarolC 16 May 06 - 03:54 PM
CarolC 16 May 06 - 03:55 PM
CarolC 16 May 06 - 03:56 PM
beardedbruce 17 May 06 - 09:24 AM
CarolC 17 May 06 - 10:10 AM
Wolfgang 21 May 06 - 04:36 PM
Little Hawk 21 May 06 - 05:07 PM
CarolC 22 May 06 - 02:00 AM
CarolC 22 May 06 - 02:28 PM
Wolfgang 24 May 06 - 02:17 PM
CarolC 24 May 06 - 02:32 PM
Little Hawk 24 May 06 - 04:55 PM
beardedbruce 24 May 06 - 05:51 PM
CarolC 24 May 06 - 05:52 PM
Little Hawk 24 May 06 - 10:00 PM
CarolC 24 May 06 - 10:33 PM
beardedbruce 25 May 06 - 06:31 AM
Wolfgang 28 May 06 - 04:39 PM
dianavan 28 May 06 - 04:47 PM
CarolC 29 May 06 - 02:26 PM
Wolfgang 16 Jun 06 - 11:23 AM
beardedbruce 22 Jun 06 - 09:19 AM
beardedbruce 22 Jun 06 - 09:26 AM
Donuel 22 Jun 06 - 09:34 AM
GUEST,Woody 22 Jun 06 - 10:23 AM
beardedbruce 10 Jul 06 - 09:39 AM
Little Hawk 10 Jul 06 - 12:16 PM
Teribus 10 Jul 06 - 01:32 PM
beardedbruce 10 Jul 06 - 01:33 PM
dianavan 10 Jul 06 - 01:44 PM
beardedbruce 10 Jul 06 - 01:51 PM
Little Hawk 10 Jul 06 - 01:57 PM
beardedbruce 10 Jul 06 - 03:21 PM
Teribus 10 Jul 06 - 03:58 PM
Little Hawk 10 Jul 06 - 04:12 PM
dianavan 10 Jul 06 - 06:33 PM
gnu 10 Jul 06 - 07:40 PM
Teribus 10 Jul 06 - 11:39 PM
Little Hawk 11 Jul 06 - 01:33 AM
GUEST 11 Jul 06 - 04:56 PM
Little Hawk 11 Jul 06 - 05:04 PM
GUEST 11 Jul 06 - 05:37 PM
Little Hawk 12 Jul 06 - 12:48 PM
beardedbruce 13 Jul 06 - 06:53 AM
beardedbruce 20 Jul 06 - 02:47 PM
Little Hawk 20 Jul 06 - 04:00 PM
GUEST 21 Jul 06 - 01:22 PM
Amos 29 Jul 06 - 02:41 PM
Amos 29 Jul 06 - 02:54 PM
GUEST,Woody 30 Jul 06 - 09:08 AM
GUEST,Fat Albert 30 Jul 06 - 10:10 AM
GUEST 01 Aug 06 - 12:05 AM
GUEST,Fat Albert 01 Aug 06 - 12:08 PM
Ebbie 01 Aug 06 - 06:53 PM
GUEST,Fat Albert 02 Aug 06 - 06:22 PM
GUEST,Woody 02 Aug 06 - 06:45 PM
Little Hawk 02 Aug 06 - 07:01 PM
GUEST,Woody 02 Aug 06 - 09:45 PM
GUEST,Woody 02 Aug 06 - 10:04 PM
GUEST,Fat Albert 02 Aug 06 - 10:57 PM
Ebbie 02 Aug 06 - 11:07 PM
GUEST,Fat Albert 02 Aug 06 - 11:18 PM
Ebbie 03 Aug 06 - 01:40 AM
GUEST,Fat Albert 03 Aug 06 - 10:37 AM
Ebbie 03 Aug 06 - 12:58 PM
Greg F. 03 Aug 06 - 01:10 PM
GUEST,Fat Albert 03 Aug 06 - 03:29 PM
Little Hawk 03 Aug 06 - 03:58 PM
GUEST,Fat Albert 03 Aug 06 - 04:58 PM
Little Hawk 03 Aug 06 - 07:32 PM
Ebbie 03 Aug 06 - 07:47 PM
GUEST,Fat Albert 03 Aug 06 - 11:11 PM
beardedbruce 21 Aug 06 - 09:59 AM
beardedbruce 21 Aug 06 - 10:00 AM
Little Hawk 21 Aug 06 - 01:23 PM
beardedbruce 24 Aug 06 - 04:23 PM
beardedbruce 01 Sep 06 - 01:54 PM
Little Hawk 01 Sep 06 - 05:41 PM
beardedbruce 19 Sep 06 - 08:58 AM
dianavan 20 Sep 06 - 01:56 AM
ard mhacha 20 Sep 06 - 04:43 AM
beardedbruce 20 Sep 06 - 07:41 AM
beardedbruce 20 Sep 06 - 07:52 AM
beardedbruce 04 Oct 06 - 07:19 AM
beardedbruce 05 Oct 06 - 09:56 AM
beardedbruce 06 Oct 06 - 12:02 PM
beardedbruce 09 Oct 06 - 06:48 AM
beardedbruce 09 Oct 06 - 07:08 AM
beardedbruce 09 Oct 06 - 07:09 AM
beardedbruce 09 Oct 06 - 07:14 AM
beardedbruce 09 Oct 06 - 07:17 AM
beardedbruce 09 Oct 06 - 07:20 AM
Little Hawk 09 Oct 06 - 02:39 PM
beardedbruce 09 Oct 06 - 02:48 PM
Little Hawk 09 Oct 06 - 03:22 PM
beardedbruce 09 Oct 06 - 05:35 PM
Little Hawk 09 Oct 06 - 06:17 PM
beardedbruce 09 Oct 06 - 06:21 PM
beardedbruce 09 Oct 06 - 06:26 PM
Little Hawk 09 Oct 06 - 06:32 PM
beardedbruce 09 Oct 06 - 06:39 PM
Dave (the ancient mariner) 09 Oct 06 - 06:42 PM
Little Hawk 09 Oct 06 - 06:46 PM
Wolfgang 10 Oct 06 - 12:47 PM
McGrath of Harlow 11 Oct 06 - 10:14 AM
beardedbruce 02 Nov 06 - 01:28 PM
beardedbruce 23 Nov 06 - 07:30 PM
GUEST,Gza 23 Nov 06 - 10:40 PM
beardedbruce 24 Nov 06 - 07:48 AM
GUEST,Gza 24 Nov 06 - 01:05 PM
GUEST 25 Nov 06 - 07:18 AM
GUEST,Gza 25 Nov 06 - 03:28 PM
GUEST 26 Nov 06 - 12:59 AM
beardedbruce 09 Feb 07 - 06:20 PM
Little Hawk 09 Feb 07 - 06:44 PM
beardedbruce 09 Feb 07 - 06:50 PM
robomatic 09 Feb 07 - 06:51 PM
beardedbruce 09 Feb 07 - 06:52 PM
Little Hawk 09 Feb 07 - 07:13 PM
beardedbruce 09 Feb 07 - 08:07 PM
Little Hawk 09 Feb 07 - 08:13 PM
beardedbruce 09 Feb 07 - 08:15 PM
Little Hawk 09 Feb 07 - 08:27 PM
Teribus 10 Feb 07 - 07:46 AM
dianavan 10 Feb 07 - 03:48 PM
Little Hawk 10 Feb 07 - 04:52 PM
Teribus 11 Feb 07 - 03:46 PM
Little Hawk 11 Feb 07 - 04:05 PM
Teribus 12 Feb 07 - 01:35 AM
dianavan 12 Feb 07 - 02:19 AM
Teribus 12 Feb 07 - 04:46 AM
Little Hawk 12 Feb 07 - 09:50 AM
Little Hawk 12 Feb 07 - 10:01 AM
GUEST,Dickey 12 Feb 07 - 10:04 AM
Little Hawk 12 Feb 07 - 10:13 AM
Teribus 12 Feb 07 - 11:24 AM
Little Hawk 12 Feb 07 - 07:34 PM
Alba 12 Feb 07 - 07:46 PM
Little Hawk 12 Feb 07 - 07:54 PM
Teribus 13 Feb 07 - 04:35 AM
Alba 13 Feb 07 - 07:26 AM
Teribus 13 Feb 07 - 10:06 AM
Amos 13 Feb 07 - 10:21 AM
Alba 13 Feb 07 - 10:46 AM
beardedbruce 13 Feb 07 - 11:12 AM
dianavan 13 Feb 07 - 11:19 AM
Teribus 13 Feb 07 - 11:26 AM
Alba 13 Feb 07 - 11:31 AM
dianavan 13 Feb 07 - 11:38 AM
McGrath of Harlow 13 Feb 07 - 11:39 AM
Captain Ginger 13 Feb 07 - 11:41 AM
dianavan 13 Feb 07 - 11:54 AM
Amos 13 Feb 07 - 12:09 PM
Captain Ginger 13 Feb 07 - 12:25 PM
Little Hawk 13 Feb 07 - 12:31 PM
GUEST,282RA 13 Feb 07 - 12:56 PM
Little Hawk 13 Feb 07 - 01:06 PM
Teribus 13 Feb 07 - 05:53 PM
Little Hawk 13 Feb 07 - 06:03 PM
Alba 13 Feb 07 - 06:09 PM
dianavan 13 Feb 07 - 07:33 PM
Teribus 14 Feb 07 - 03:11 AM
GUEST,beardedbruce 14 Feb 07 - 06:33 AM
Little Hawk 14 Feb 07 - 11:14 AM
McGrath of Harlow 14 Feb 07 - 11:47 AM
beardedbruce 14 Feb 07 - 03:54 PM
Little Hawk 14 Feb 07 - 05:31 PM
dianavan 14 Feb 07 - 10:11 PM
Captain Ginger 15 Feb 07 - 03:22 AM
dianavan 15 Feb 07 - 05:27 AM
dianavan 15 Feb 07 - 05:30 AM
beardedbruce 15 Feb 07 - 10:22 AM
Donuel 15 Feb 07 - 10:43 AM
Amos 15 Feb 07 - 10:45 AM
Little Hawk 15 Feb 07 - 12:15 PM
Donuel 15 Feb 07 - 12:33 PM
beardedbruce 22 Feb 07 - 02:48 PM
beardedbruce 23 Feb 07 - 07:34 AM
Barry Finn 23 Feb 07 - 08:36 AM
beardedbruce 23 Feb 07 - 08:44 AM
Barry Finn 23 Feb 07 - 09:25 AM
beardedbruce 23 Feb 07 - 09:32 AM
beardedbruce 23 Feb 07 - 09:38 AM
beardedbruce 23 Feb 07 - 11:32 AM
Barry Finn 23 Feb 07 - 12:10 PM
Little Hawk 23 Feb 07 - 12:31 PM
dianavan 23 Feb 07 - 12:41 PM
Little Hawk 23 Feb 07 - 12:43 PM
autolycus 23 Feb 07 - 01:05 PM
Peace 23 Feb 07 - 01:23 PM
beardedbruce 23 Feb 07 - 01:47 PM
Barry Finn 23 Feb 07 - 02:55 PM
beardedbruce 23 Feb 07 - 03:09 PM
beardedbruce 23 Feb 07 - 03:11 PM
dianavan 23 Feb 07 - 07:46 PM
folk1e 23 Feb 07 - 07:59 PM
Little Hawk 23 Feb 07 - 08:02 PM
dianavan 23 Feb 07 - 08:05 PM
Little Hawk 23 Feb 07 - 08:06 PM
folk1e 23 Feb 07 - 08:15 PM
folk1e 23 Feb 07 - 08:17 PM
autolycus 24 Feb 07 - 06:17 AM
GUEST,beardedbruce 24 Feb 07 - 08:00 AM
freda underhill 24 Feb 07 - 08:14 AM
GUEST 24 Feb 07 - 08:17 AM
GUEST,beardedbruce 24 Feb 07 - 08:22 AM
freda underhill 24 Feb 07 - 08:32 AM
freda underhill 24 Feb 07 - 08:36 AM
GUEST,beardedbruce 24 Feb 07 - 08:49 AM
Little Hawk 24 Feb 07 - 12:57 PM
autolycus 24 Feb 07 - 03:21 PM
Little Hawk 24 Feb 07 - 03:31 PM
Peace 24 Feb 07 - 11:28 PM
Little Hawk 24 Feb 07 - 11:38 PM
Peace 24 Feb 07 - 11:42 PM
Little Hawk 25 Feb 07 - 12:11 AM
Peace 25 Feb 07 - 12:24 AM
Little Hawk 25 Feb 07 - 01:25 AM
GUEST,Dickey 25 Feb 07 - 02:01 AM
Little Hawk 25 Feb 07 - 02:54 AM
GUEST,beardedbruce 25 Feb 07 - 09:23 AM
GUEST,beardedbruce 25 Feb 07 - 12:56 PM
autolycus 25 Feb 07 - 01:04 PM
GUEST,beardedbruce 25 Feb 07 - 01:26 PM
dianavan 25 Feb 07 - 01:53 PM
Little Hawk 25 Feb 07 - 01:54 PM
Barry Finn 25 Feb 07 - 02:04 PM
GUEST,Dickey 25 Feb 07 - 07:11 PM
Barry Finn 25 Feb 07 - 07:19 PM
beardedbruce 26 Feb 07 - 06:51 AM
beardedbruce 26 Feb 07 - 08:22 AM
autolycus 26 Feb 07 - 10:46 AM
beardedbruce 26 Feb 07 - 11:01 AM
Little Hawk 26 Feb 07 - 01:19 PM
beardedbruce 26 Feb 07 - 01:29 PM
Little Hawk 26 Feb 07 - 01:36 PM
beardedbruce 26 Feb 07 - 01:43 PM
Little Hawk 26 Feb 07 - 02:58 PM
beardedbruce 26 Feb 07 - 03:04 PM
dianavan 26 Feb 07 - 03:19 PM
Little Hawk 26 Feb 07 - 03:19 PM
autolycus 26 Feb 07 - 05:51 PM
Teribus 26 Feb 07 - 08:16 PM
Teribus 26 Feb 07 - 08:24 PM
Little Hawk 26 Feb 07 - 10:52 PM
TIA 26 Feb 07 - 10:58 PM
dianavan 27 Feb 07 - 01:28 AM
Teribus 27 Feb 07 - 02:29 AM
Captain Ginger 27 Feb 07 - 04:09 AM
Teribus 27 Feb 07 - 07:44 AM
Teribus 27 Feb 07 - 07:45 AM
Captain Ginger 27 Feb 07 - 08:29 AM
Teribus 27 Feb 07 - 08:44 AM
Little Hawk 27 Feb 07 - 12:01 PM
dianavan 27 Feb 07 - 01:02 PM
Teribus 27 Feb 07 - 08:28 PM
dianavan 27 Feb 07 - 10:21 PM
Little Hawk 27 Feb 07 - 10:52 PM
GUEST 27 Feb 07 - 11:11 PM
Little Hawk 27 Feb 07 - 11:19 PM
Teribus 28 Feb 07 - 12:46 AM
Little Hawk 28 Feb 07 - 09:46 AM
Peace 28 Feb 07 - 10:10 AM
Little Hawk 28 Feb 07 - 10:20 AM
Little Hawk 28 Feb 07 - 10:26 AM
GUEST,Dickey 28 Feb 07 - 12:56 PM
dianavan 28 Feb 07 - 01:46 PM
Little Hawk 28 Feb 07 - 05:25 PM
beardedbruce 28 Feb 07 - 06:34 PM
Little Hawk 28 Feb 07 - 07:22 PM
beardedbruce 28 Feb 07 - 08:33 PM
Bobert 28 Feb 07 - 08:50 PM
Little Hawk 28 Feb 07 - 11:32 PM
Peace 28 Feb 07 - 11:41 PM
Teribus 01 Mar 07 - 10:50 AM
dianavan 01 Mar 07 - 01:00 PM
Little Hawk 01 Mar 07 - 02:04 PM
Nickhere 01 Mar 07 - 02:53 PM
Nickhere 01 Mar 07 - 03:23 PM
autolycus 01 Mar 07 - 03:32 PM
dianavan 01 Mar 07 - 04:11 PM
Little Hawk 01 Mar 07 - 04:14 PM
Nickhere 01 Mar 07 - 08:05 PM
Peace 01 Mar 07 - 08:10 PM
Nickhere 01 Mar 07 - 09:09 PM
Teribus 01 Mar 07 - 09:23 PM
Little Hawk 01 Mar 07 - 09:26 PM
Peace 01 Mar 07 - 09:33 PM
Teribus 01 Mar 07 - 09:59 PM
Nickhere 01 Mar 07 - 10:00 PM
Nickhere 01 Mar 07 - 10:08 PM
bobad 01 Mar 07 - 10:27 PM
Peace 01 Mar 07 - 10:40 PM
Peace 01 Mar 07 - 10:52 PM
Little Hawk 01 Mar 07 - 10:57 PM
Peace 02 Mar 07 - 12:34 AM
dianavan 02 Mar 07 - 02:05 AM
beardedbruce 02 Mar 07 - 07:25 AM
bobad 02 Mar 07 - 07:50 AM
Peace 02 Mar 07 - 10:15 AM
Peace 02 Mar 07 - 10:21 AM
beardedbruce 02 Mar 07 - 10:35 AM
beardedbruce 02 Mar 07 - 10:50 AM
Peace 02 Mar 07 - 11:46 AM
dianavan 02 Mar 07 - 11:53 AM
bobad 02 Mar 07 - 12:14 PM
Little Hawk 02 Mar 07 - 12:31 PM
Little Hawk 02 Mar 07 - 12:42 PM
dianavan 02 Mar 07 - 12:43 PM
beardedbruce 02 Mar 07 - 02:23 PM
Nickhere 02 Mar 07 - 02:38 PM
Peace 02 Mar 07 - 02:43 PM
Peace 02 Mar 07 - 02:45 PM
beardedbruce 02 Mar 07 - 02:48 PM
Peace 02 Mar 07 - 05:31 PM
Little Hawk 02 Mar 07 - 05:57 PM
Nickhere 02 Mar 07 - 06:57 PM
Peace 02 Mar 07 - 07:04 PM
Peace 02 Mar 07 - 07:05 PM
Peace 02 Mar 07 - 07:30 PM
Teribus 03 Mar 07 - 04:49 AM
Little Hawk 03 Mar 07 - 01:55 PM
Teribus 03 Mar 07 - 07:52 PM
Peace 03 Mar 07 - 08:00 PM
Bobert 03 Mar 07 - 08:06 PM
Nickhere 04 Mar 07 - 10:40 AM
beardedbruce 05 Mar 07 - 03:22 PM
Peace 05 Mar 07 - 10:13 PM
Nickhere 06 Mar 07 - 07:52 PM
Donuel 06 Mar 07 - 10:08 PM
Little Hawk 06 Mar 07 - 10:37 PM
beardedbruce 21 Mar 07 - 12:00 PM
dianavan 21 Mar 07 - 01:04 PM
Teribus 21 Mar 07 - 01:32 PM
dianavan 21 Mar 07 - 01:52 PM
dianavan 21 Mar 07 - 02:20 PM
Little Hawk 21 Mar 07 - 03:28 PM
Teribus 21 Mar 07 - 07:24 PM
Little Hawk 21 Mar 07 - 08:00 PM
DougR 21 Mar 07 - 08:00 PM
Nickhere 21 Mar 07 - 09:23 PM
Little Hawk 21 Mar 07 - 09:58 PM
Barry Finn 22 Mar 07 - 01:31 AM
Stephen L. Rich 22 Mar 07 - 01:45 AM
beardedbruce 22 Mar 07 - 10:16 AM
Little Hawk 22 Mar 07 - 11:26 AM
Teribus 22 Mar 07 - 01:19 PM
dianavan 22 Mar 07 - 01:29 PM
beardedbruce 22 Mar 07 - 02:02 PM
beardedbruce 22 Mar 07 - 02:38 PM
autolycus 22 Mar 07 - 02:41 PM
beardedbruce 22 Mar 07 - 02:46 PM
beardedbruce 22 Mar 07 - 02:52 PM
Little Hawk 22 Mar 07 - 03:21 PM
dianavan 22 Mar 07 - 03:48 PM
beardedbruce 22 Mar 07 - 04:02 PM
Teribus 22 Mar 07 - 10:05 PM
dianavan 22 Mar 07 - 10:59 PM
Little Hawk 23 Mar 07 - 12:08 AM
Teribus 23 Mar 07 - 02:29 AM
Barry Finn 23 Mar 07 - 02:46 AM
Little Hawk 23 Mar 07 - 03:05 AM
Teribus 23 Mar 07 - 07:20 AM
beardedbruce 23 Mar 07 - 07:50 AM
beardedbruce 23 Mar 07 - 10:09 AM
Teribus 23 Mar 07 - 11:26 AM
beardedbruce 29 Mar 07 - 11:32 AM
Little Hawk 29 Mar 07 - 01:23 PM
beardedbruce 29 Mar 07 - 01:28 PM
Little Hawk 29 Mar 07 - 04:22 PM
Little Hawk 29 Mar 07 - 04:24 PM
Nickhere 29 Mar 07 - 07:38 PM
Little Hawk 29 Mar 07 - 07:52 PM
Teribus 29 Mar 07 - 07:52 PM
Little Hawk 29 Mar 07 - 08:02 PM
dianavan 29 Mar 07 - 11:56 PM
Nickhere 30 Mar 07 - 02:46 PM
GUEST,John T. M 30 Mar 07 - 09:02 PM
beardedbruce 10 Apr 07 - 08:04 AM
beardedbruce 10 Apr 07 - 01:59 PM
Dickey 13 Apr 07 - 02:32 PM
beardedbruce 13 Apr 07 - 02:53 PM
dianavan 13 Apr 07 - 03:45 PM
beardedbruce 13 Apr 07 - 03:53 PM
Teribus 14 Apr 07 - 05:53 AM
beardedbruce 14 Apr 07 - 09:27 AM
Nickhere 14 Apr 07 - 09:21 PM
Peace 15 Apr 07 - 01:03 AM
Peace 15 Apr 07 - 01:09 AM
dianavan 15 Apr 07 - 03:14 AM
Teribus 15 Apr 07 - 03:34 AM
Keith A of Hertford 15 Apr 07 - 04:12 PM
Keith A of Hertford 15 Apr 07 - 04:24 PM
bobad 18 Apr 07 - 07:20 PM
dianavan 18 Apr 07 - 11:51 PM
dianavan 19 Apr 07 - 12:05 AM
Stringsinger 19 Apr 07 - 12:24 AM
Teribus 19 Apr 07 - 03:40 AM
Keith A of Hertford 23 Apr 07 - 04:29 AM
Wolfgang 23 Apr 07 - 11:14 AM
Amos 23 Apr 07 - 12:15 PM
Teribus 23 Apr 07 - 06:35 PM
Amos 23 Apr 07 - 06:40 PM
Nickhere 23 Apr 07 - 07:07 PM
Teribus 24 Apr 07 - 12:23 AM
Dickey 24 Apr 07 - 12:42 AM
Amos 24 Apr 07 - 01:23 AM
dianavan 24 Apr 07 - 01:54 AM
Dickey 24 Apr 07 - 10:34 AM
dianavan 24 Apr 07 - 12:49 PM
Dickey 25 Apr 07 - 12:34 AM
Amos 25 Apr 07 - 02:58 AM
Wolfgang 25 Apr 07 - 07:09 AM
Dickey 26 Apr 07 - 02:40 PM
Teribus 26 Apr 07 - 08:33 PM
dianavan 26 Apr 07 - 09:39 PM
Teribus 27 Apr 07 - 01:31 AM
dianavan 27 Apr 07 - 03:16 AM
beardedbruce 27 Apr 07 - 07:28 AM
beardedbruce 27 Apr 07 - 07:53 AM
beardedbruce 27 Apr 07 - 12:39 PM
Dickey 27 Apr 07 - 04:40 PM
dianavan 27 Apr 07 - 04:46 PM
Dickey 28 Apr 07 - 02:47 AM
dianavan 28 Apr 07 - 03:35 AM
Dickey 28 Apr 07 - 12:09 PM
dianavan 28 Apr 07 - 05:53 PM
dianavan 29 Apr 07 - 03:20 AM
beardedbruce 04 May 07 - 02:49 PM
dianavan 04 May 07 - 03:14 PM
beardedbruce 08 May 07 - 07:45 AM
beardedbruce 11 May 07 - 07:38 AM
beardedbruce 11 May 07 - 01:59 PM
Dickey 12 May 07 - 12:11 AM
Dickey 12 May 07 - 12:12 AM
Dickey 14 May 07 - 09:39 AM
dianavan 14 May 07 - 11:44 AM
Dickey 14 May 07 - 09:42 PM
Dickey 15 May 07 - 09:59 AM
beardedbruce 15 May 07 - 12:46 PM
Lepus Rex 15 May 07 - 01:08 PM
Dickey 15 May 07 - 03:36 PM
dianavan 15 May 07 - 05:12 PM
Dickey 15 May 07 - 06:25 PM
Lepus Rex 15 May 07 - 08:31 PM
Dickey 15 May 07 - 11:30 PM
Lepus Rex 16 May 07 - 12:07 AM
Dickey 16 May 07 - 11:42 PM
dianavan 17 May 07 - 01:30 AM
beardedbruce 17 May 07 - 11:00 AM
GUEST 17 May 07 - 04:53 PM
Stringsinger 17 May 07 - 05:25 PM
GUEST,Fox Viewer 17 May 07 - 07:00 PM
pirandello 17 May 07 - 07:24 PM
Lepus Rex 17 May 07 - 10:35 PM
Dickey 18 May 07 - 09:22 AM
GUEST,dianavan 18 May 07 - 12:49 PM
Lepus Rex 18 May 07 - 01:24 PM
Lepus Rex 18 May 07 - 01:32 PM
Dickey 18 May 07 - 11:16 PM
Dickey 19 May 07 - 12:17 AM
Lepus Rex 19 May 07 - 01:36 AM
GUEST 19 May 07 - 04:29 AM
GUEST,dianavan 19 May 07 - 04:30 AM
Teribus 19 May 07 - 07:55 AM
GUEST,dianavan 19 May 07 - 06:04 PM
Dickey 20 May 07 - 02:41 AM
GUEST,dianavan 20 May 07 - 03:47 AM
beardedbruce 23 May 07 - 02:23 PM
beardedbruce 23 May 07 - 02:27 PM
Richard Bridge 23 May 07 - 02:39 PM
beardedbruce 23 May 07 - 02:43 PM
McGrath of Harlow 23 May 07 - 07:22 PM
beardedbruce 24 May 07 - 03:25 PM
beardedbruce 25 May 07 - 09:42 AM
Dickey 25 May 07 - 10:01 AM
Lepus Rex 25 May 07 - 06:58 PM
Dickey 26 May 07 - 12:31 AM
Dickey 28 May 07 - 08:10 AM
GUEST,dianavan 28 May 07 - 11:56 PM
Teribus 29 May 07 - 03:40 AM
GUEST,beardedbruce. 29 May 07 - 04:32 AM
Dickey 29 May 07 - 09:34 AM
GUEST,dianavan 29 May 07 - 11:41 AM
beardedbruce 29 May 07 - 12:44 PM
Dickey 30 May 07 - 01:22 AM
GUEST,dianavan 30 May 07 - 02:31 AM
beardedbruce 30 May 07 - 02:24 PM
GUEST,dianavan 30 May 07 - 08:00 PM
beardedbruce 30 May 07 - 08:01 PM
beardedbruce 01 Jun 07 - 09:09 PM
Dickey 01 Jun 07 - 11:26 PM
beardedbruce 08 Jun 07 - 11:27 AM
beardedbruce 15 Jun 07 - 05:07 PM
Nickhere 19 Jun 07 - 08:19 PM
beardedbruce 20 Jun 07 - 04:08 PM
GUEST,beardedbruce 22 Jun 07 - 10:36 AM
beardedbruce 27 Jun 07 - 04:28 PM
beardedbruce 28 Jun 07 - 02:16 PM
beardedbruce 29 Jun 07 - 09:00 AM
beardedbruce 02 Jul 07 - 04:05 PM
beardedbruce 16 Jul 07 - 08:01 AM
Teribus 16 Jul 07 - 10:36 AM
beardedbruce 17 Jul 07 - 11:34 AM
beardedbruce 19 Jul 07 - 09:32 AM
beardedbruce 19 Jul 07 - 09:45 AM
beardedbruce 10 Aug 07 - 09:25 AM
beardedbruce 21 Aug 07 - 02:29 PM
beardedbruce 21 Sep 07 - 11:04 PM
Peace 21 Sep 07 - 11:27 PM
Little Hawk 22 Sep 07 - 02:07 PM
beardedbruce 28 Sep 07 - 04:07 PM
beardedbruce 02 Oct 07 - 02:32 PM
Little Hawk 02 Oct 07 - 02:37 PM
beardedbruce 02 Oct 07 - 02:42 PM
DougR 02 Oct 07 - 03:47 PM
beardedbruce 02 Oct 07 - 03:56 PM
Teribus 02 Oct 07 - 04:33 PM
Little Hawk 02 Oct 07 - 04:50 PM
beardedbruce 02 Oct 07 - 06:16 PM
Little Hawk 02 Oct 07 - 06:39 PM
beardedbruce 02 Oct 07 - 10:17 PM
beardedbruce 02 Oct 07 - 10:34 PM
beardedbruce 02 Oct 07 - 10:35 PM
beardedbruce 02 Oct 07 - 11:02 PM
Little Hawk 03 Oct 07 - 02:06 PM
beardedbruce 03 Oct 07 - 02:38 PM
beardedbruce 03 Oct 07 - 03:00 PM
Teribus 03 Oct 07 - 03:06 PM
Little Hawk 03 Oct 07 - 06:18 PM
Bobert 03 Oct 07 - 06:32 PM
beardedbruce 13 Nov 07 - 05:52 PM
Nickhere 16 Nov 07 - 02:05 PM
Nickhere 16 Nov 07 - 02:18 PM
beardedbruce 16 Nov 07 - 03:15 PM
beardedbruce 16 Nov 07 - 03:25 PM
Teribus 17 Nov 07 - 05:40 AM
Nickhere 17 Nov 07 - 09:01 PM
Nickhere 17 Nov 07 - 09:04 PM
Teribus 18 Nov 07 - 06:47 AM
Nickhere 19 Nov 07 - 01:45 PM
beardedbruce 19 Nov 07 - 02:00 PM
GUEST,TIA 19 Nov 07 - 02:54 PM
Nickhere 19 Nov 07 - 04:40 PM
beardedbruce 19 Nov 07 - 07:43 PM
Teribus 20 Nov 07 - 07:17 PM
Nickhere 20 Nov 07 - 07:22 PM
beardedbruce 20 Nov 07 - 08:05 PM
Nickhere 21 Nov 07 - 06:11 PM
Nickhere 22 Nov 07 - 03:52 PM
Nickhere 22 Nov 07 - 04:27 PM
Amos 03 Dec 07 - 02:08 PM
Teribus 03 Dec 07 - 03:39 PM
GUEST,dianavan 03 Dec 07 - 05:01 PM
Teribus 03 Dec 07 - 05:44 PM
Amos 04 Dec 07 - 01:10 PM
Nickhere 04 Dec 07 - 06:30 PM
Teribus 05 Dec 07 - 08:00 AM
Nickhere 09 Dec 07 - 12:40 AM
GUEST,dianavan 09 Dec 07 - 03:17 AM
beardedbruce 09 Dec 07 - 07:47 AM
beardedbruce 09 Dec 07 - 07:52 AM
beardedbruce 09 Dec 07 - 07:54 AM
beardedbruce 25 Feb 08 - 06:31 PM
beardedbruce 26 Feb 08 - 01:44 PM
Amos 14 Mar 08 - 05:25 PM
Amos 14 Mar 08 - 06:48 PM
CarolC 15 Mar 08 - 01:50 PM
beardedbruce 05 May 08 - 11:26 AM
beardedbruce 05 May 08 - 11:52 AM
beardedbruce 05 May 08 - 11:53 AM
GUEST,Chief Chaos 05 May 08 - 09:23 PM
beardedbruce 07 May 08 - 09:18 AM
Little Hawk 07 May 08 - 10:53 AM
beardedbruce 13 May 08 - 07:12 AM
Teribus 13 May 08 - 05:59 PM
beardedbruce 26 May 08 - 08:12 PM
Amos 26 May 08 - 08:19 PM
Q (Frank Staplin) 26 May 08 - 10:11 PM
Little Hawk 26 May 08 - 10:32 PM
Teribus 27 May 08 - 01:50 AM
Little Hawk 27 May 08 - 07:37 PM
beardedbruce 28 May 08 - 07:58 AM
beardedbruce 28 May 08 - 09:43 AM
Little Hawk 28 May 08 - 10:34 AM
beardedbruce 28 May 08 - 10:45 AM
Little Hawk 28 May 08 - 11:11 AM
Teribus 28 May 08 - 12:31 PM
Little Hawk 28 May 08 - 12:39 PM
GUEST 28 May 08 - 01:15 PM
beardedbruce 28 May 08 - 01:21 PM
Little Hawk 28 May 08 - 02:04 PM
Teribus 28 May 08 - 03:39 PM
beardedbruce 28 May 08 - 04:02 PM
Little Hawk 28 May 08 - 04:10 PM
Little Hawk 28 May 08 - 04:27 PM
beardedbruce 25 Jun 08 - 05:04 PM
Little Hawk 25 Jun 08 - 07:12 PM
Teribus 26 Jun 08 - 10:05 AM
beardedbruce 26 Jun 08 - 11:30 AM
beardedbruce 08 Jul 08 - 12:47 PM
beardedbruce 09 Jul 08 - 09:01 AM
beardedbruce 09 Jul 08 - 12:50 PM
beardedbruce 09 Jul 08 - 01:59 PM
Amos 09 Jul 08 - 02:14 PM
beardedbruce 09 Jul 08 - 02:17 PM
GUEST,Above 49 09 Jul 08 - 02:19 PM
beardedbruce 09 Jul 08 - 05:28 PM
Bee-dubya-ell 09 Jul 08 - 09:27 PM
CarolC 10 Jul 08 - 12:21 AM
beardedbruce 10 Jul 08 - 01:23 PM
Amos 10 Jul 08 - 01:26 PM
Q (Frank Staplin) 10 Jul 08 - 10:50 PM
GUEST,beardedbruce 23 Jul 08 - 09:13 AM
CarolC 23 Jul 08 - 11:22 AM
Little Hawk 23 Jul 08 - 11:32 AM
beardedbruce 25 Aug 08 - 04:34 PM
GUEST,beardedbruce 29 Aug 08 - 10:10 PM
GUEST,beardedbruce 15 Sep 08 - 12:23 PM
beardedbruce 19 Sep 08 - 12:24 PM
Stringsinger 19 Sep 08 - 12:29 PM
beardedbruce 19 Sep 08 - 12:33 PM
beardedbruce 22 Sep 08 - 09:21 AM
beardedbruce 22 Sep 08 - 12:04 PM
GUEST,beardedbruce 23 Sep 08 - 06:33 AM
beardedbruce 23 Sep 08 - 07:35 AM
GUEST,beardedbruce 23 Sep 08 - 10:04 AM
beardedbruce 25 Sep 08 - 11:55 AM
GUEST,beardedbruce 25 Sep 08 - 04:00 PM
Little Hawk 25 Sep 08 - 04:27 PM
GUEST,beardedbruce 26 Sep 08 - 08:30 AM
GUEST,beardedbruce 26 Sep 08 - 08:33 AM
beardedbruce 29 Sep 08 - 11:52 AM
Little Hawk 29 Sep 08 - 01:06 PM
beardedbruce 29 Sep 08 - 01:25 PM
beardedbruce 29 Sep 08 - 01:28 PM
Little Hawk 29 Sep 08 - 01:51 PM
beardedbruce 29 Sep 08 - 02:04 PM
Little Hawk 29 Sep 08 - 03:15 PM
beardedbruce 29 Sep 08 - 03:22 PM
Little Hawk 29 Sep 08 - 03:50 PM
beardedbruce 30 Sep 08 - 05:55 AM
GUEST,beardedbruce 30 Sep 08 - 07:24 AM
GUEST,beardedbruce 30 Sep 08 - 07:27 AM
GUEST,beardedbruce 07 Oct 08 - 12:20 PM
GUEST,beardedbruce 07 Oct 08 - 02:48 PM
GUEST,beardedbruce 09 Oct 08 - 08:08 AM
GUEST,beardedbruce 09 Oct 08 - 11:24 AM
GUEST,beardedbuce 09 Oct 08 - 12:57 PM
beardedbruce 10 Oct 08 - 12:29 PM
GUEST,beardedbruce 19 Nov 08 - 07:29 PM
GUEST,beardedbruce 20 Nov 08 - 06:27 AM
goatfell 20 Nov 08 - 08:19 AM
McGrath of Harlow 20 Nov 08 - 02:25 PM
GUEST,beardedbruce 09 Dec 08 - 03:16 PM
GUEST,beardedbruce 11 Dec 08 - 03:13 PM
GUEST,beardedbruce 11 Dec 08 - 03:15 PM
Teribus 11 Dec 08 - 06:00 PM
GUEST,beardedbruce 17 Dec 08 - 05:43 PM
beardedbruce 03 Feb 09 - 10:15 AM
Musket 03 Feb 09 - 10:40 AM
beardedbruce 05 Feb 09 - 11:42 AM
Little Hawk 05 Feb 09 - 12:16 PM
beardedbruce 05 Feb 09 - 12:30 PM
beardedbruce 05 Feb 09 - 12:33 PM
CarolC 05 Feb 09 - 02:36 PM
beardedbruce 09 Feb 09 - 09:49 AM
robomatic 09 Feb 09 - 09:13 PM
beardedbruce 10 Feb 09 - 05:51 AM
beardedbruce 10 Feb 09 - 06:40 AM
Keith A of Hertford 10 Feb 09 - 08:37 AM
beardedbruce 10 Feb 09 - 09:46 AM
robomatic 10 Feb 09 - 10:46 AM
Sawzaw 13 Feb 09 - 11:06 PM
beardedbruce 17 Feb 09 - 07:02 AM
beardedbruce 17 Feb 09 - 08:13 AM
beardedbruce 17 Feb 09 - 08:14 AM
GUEST,MV 18 Feb 09 - 05:39 AM
GUEST,beardedbruce 19 Feb 09 - 09:15 PM
GUEST,beardedbruce 19 Feb 09 - 09:40 PM
beardedbruce 20 Feb 09 - 04:25 PM
CarolC 21 Feb 09 - 11:43 PM
beardedbruce 23 Feb 09 - 02:23 PM
beardedbruce 23 Feb 09 - 02:33 PM
CarolC 23 Feb 09 - 02:34 PM
CarolC 23 Feb 09 - 02:46 PM
beardedbruce 23 Feb 09 - 02:51 PM
CarolC 23 Feb 09 - 03:06 PM
CarolC 23 Feb 09 - 03:12 PM
GUEST,beardedbruce 23 Feb 09 - 03:16 PM
GUEST,beardedbruce 23 Feb 09 - 03:18 PM
CarolC 23 Feb 09 - 03:52 PM
beardedbruce 23 Feb 09 - 03:57 PM
CarolC 23 Feb 09 - 04:22 PM
beardedbruce 23 Feb 09 - 04:38 PM
Amos 23 Feb 09 - 04:41 PM
CarolC 23 Feb 09 - 06:02 PM
Teribus 23 Feb 09 - 06:15 PM
CarolC 23 Feb 09 - 06:22 PM
GUEST,beardedbruce 23 Feb 09 - 10:59 PM
CarolC 24 Feb 09 - 01:05 AM
Teribus 24 Feb 09 - 01:21 AM
CarolC 24 Feb 09 - 01:56 AM
Teribus 24 Feb 09 - 02:20 AM
beardedbruce 24 Feb 09 - 01:02 PM
beardedbruce 24 Feb 09 - 01:27 PM
CarolC 24 Feb 09 - 02:19 PM
beardedbruce 24 Feb 09 - 02:37 PM
CarolC 24 Feb 09 - 02:53 PM
beardedbruce 24 Feb 09 - 02:55 PM
CarolC 24 Feb 09 - 03:02 PM
beardedbruce 24 Feb 09 - 03:05 PM
CarolC 24 Feb 09 - 03:16 PM
CarolC 24 Feb 09 - 03:23 PM
beardedbruce 24 Feb 09 - 03:26 PM
Amos 24 Feb 09 - 03:28 PM
beardedbruce 24 Feb 09 - 03:29 PM
beardedbruce 24 Feb 09 - 03:32 PM
beardedbruce 24 Feb 09 - 03:49 PM
beardedbruce 24 Feb 09 - 03:52 PM
CarolC 24 Feb 09 - 05:08 PM
beardedbruce 24 Feb 09 - 05:13 PM
beardedbruce 24 Feb 09 - 05:16 PM
beardedbruce 24 Feb 09 - 05:26 PM
beardedbruce 24 Feb 09 - 05:32 PM
CarolC 24 Feb 09 - 05:52 PM
beardedbruce 24 Feb 09 - 05:57 PM
Teribus 24 Feb 09 - 05:59 PM
CarolC 24 Feb 09 - 06:03 PM
CarolC 24 Feb 09 - 06:08 PM
GUEST,beardedbruce 24 Feb 09 - 08:09 PM
GUEST,beardedbruce 24 Feb 09 - 08:18 PM
cobra 25 Feb 09 - 02:31 AM
CarolC 25 Feb 09 - 02:46 AM
CarolC 25 Feb 09 - 02:50 AM
Teribus 25 Feb 09 - 10:14 AM
Amos 25 Feb 09 - 10:24 AM
Teribus 25 Feb 09 - 10:47 AM
beardedbruce 25 Feb 09 - 12:23 PM
beardedbruce 25 Feb 09 - 01:01 PM
CarolC 25 Feb 09 - 01:17 PM
beardedbruce 25 Feb 09 - 01:18 PM
beardedbruce 25 Feb 09 - 01:25 PM
beardedbruce 25 Feb 09 - 02:11 PM
beardedbruce 09 Mar 09 - 11:13 AM
CarolC 09 Mar 09 - 12:14 PM
CarolC 09 Mar 09 - 12:20 PM
GUEST,beardedbruce 09 Mar 09 - 02:47 PM
bubblyrat 10 Mar 09 - 10:27 AM
GUEST,beardedbruce 11 Mar 09 - 05:41 AM
GUEST,beardedbruce 11 Mar 09 - 05:44 AM
GUEST,beardedbruce 11 Mar 09 - 06:31 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 11 Mar 09 - 10:17 PM
GUEST,beardedbruce 16 Mar 09 - 06:47 AM
beardedbruce 18 Mar 09 - 06:42 AM
beardedbruce 18 Mar 09 - 08:55 AM
beardedbruce 26 Mar 09 - 08:54 AM
beardedbruce 27 Mar 09 - 07:57 AM
beardedbruce 07 Apr 09 - 06:54 AM
beardedbruce 07 Apr 09 - 07:08 AM
beardedbruce 14 Apr 09 - 11:03 AM
beardedbruce 14 Apr 09 - 02:40 PM
beardedbruce 14 Apr 09 - 02:42 PM
beardedbruce 14 Apr 09 - 03:21 PM
beardedbruce 29 Apr 09 - 03:21 PM
Little Hawk 29 Apr 09 - 09:20 PM
beardedbruce 08 May 09 - 10:31 AM
beardedbruce 19 May 09 - 09:04 AM
beardedbruce 19 May 09 - 09:09 AM
beardedbruce 20 May 09 - 07:48 AM
CarolC 20 May 09 - 12:14 PM
CarolC 20 May 09 - 12:14 PM
mayomick 20 May 09 - 01:42 PM
CarolC 20 May 09 - 02:12 PM
GUEST,beardedbruce 22 May 09 - 03:52 PM
CarolC 22 May 09 - 04:02 PM
GUEST,beardedbruce 22 May 09 - 04:15 PM
CarolC 22 May 09 - 04:40 PM
CarolC 22 May 09 - 04:45 PM
GUEST,beardedbruce 25 May 09 - 09:48 AM
GUEST,beardedbruce 25 May 09 - 10:35 AM
GUEST,beardedbruce 25 May 09 - 10:37 AM
GUEST,beardedbruce 25 May 09 - 10:40 AM
CarolC 25 May 09 - 12:05 PM
GUEST,beardedbruce 25 May 09 - 12:43 PM
CarolC 25 May 09 - 12:54 PM
GUEST,beardedbruce 25 May 09 - 01:08 PM
Lox 25 May 09 - 01:20 PM
GUEST,beardedbruce 25 May 09 - 01:40 PM
Bonzo3legs 25 May 09 - 03:49 PM
GUEST,beardedbruce 25 May 09 - 05:16 PM
GUEST,beardedbruce 25 May 09 - 05:31 PM
beardedbruce 25 May 09 - 08:23 PM
CarolC 25 May 09 - 09:10 PM
bobad 25 May 09 - 09:19 PM
CarolC 26 May 09 - 12:23 AM
beardedbruce 26 May 09 - 01:13 PM
CarolC 26 May 09 - 02:03 PM
Little Hawk 26 May 09 - 02:21 PM
beardedbruce 26 May 09 - 02:38 PM
Little Hawk 26 May 09 - 04:10 PM
CarolC 26 May 09 - 04:18 PM
GUEST,beardedbruce 26 May 09 - 04:26 PM
GUEST,beardedbruce 26 May 09 - 05:38 PM
Little Hawk 26 May 09 - 06:49 PM
beardedbruce 26 May 09 - 08:14 PM
GUEST,beardedbruce 26 May 09 - 09:23 PM
CarolC 26 May 09 - 09:26 PM
CarolC 26 May 09 - 09:29 PM
CarolC 27 May 09 - 01:56 AM
GUEST,Greycap 27 May 09 - 05:54 AM
Lox 27 May 09 - 09:05 AM
beardedbruce 27 May 09 - 02:10 PM
GUEST,beardedbruce 27 May 09 - 05:40 PM
GUEST,beardedbruce 27 May 09 - 06:41 PM
beardedbruce 28 May 09 - 02:02 PM
beardedbruce 28 May 09 - 03:02 PM
beardedbruce 28 May 09 - 03:47 PM
Rapparee 28 May 09 - 04:55 PM
CarolC 28 May 09 - 05:43 PM
Rapparee 28 May 09 - 06:23 PM
CarolC 28 May 09 - 06:37 PM
GUEST,Rapaire 28 May 09 - 08:51 PM
CarolC 28 May 09 - 09:04 PM
Rapparee 28 May 09 - 10:29 PM
CarolC 28 May 09 - 10:41 PM
beardedbruce 01 Jun 09 - 07:49 PM
CarolC 01 Jun 09 - 08:21 PM
GUEST,beardedbruce 01 Jun 09 - 10:25 PM
CarolC 02 Jun 09 - 12:42 AM
CarolC 02 Jun 09 - 03:20 AM
GUEST,beardedbruce 02 Jun 09 - 08:01 PM
CarolC 02 Jun 09 - 10:42 PM
CarolC 05 Jun 09 - 03:36 AM
CarolC 05 Jun 09 - 03:37 AM
GUEST,beardedbruce 05 Jun 09 - 05:37 PM
GUEST,beardedbruce 05 Jun 09 - 05:43 PM
CarolC 06 Jun 09 - 08:10 AM
GUEST,beardedbruce 07 Jun 09 - 07:21 PM
GUEST,beardedbruce 11 Jun 09 - 05:19 PM
GUEST,beardedbruce 11 Jun 09 - 10:12 PM
GUEST,beardedbruce 12 Jun 09 - 08:06 PM
GUEST,beardedbruce 12 Jun 09 - 08:12 PM
GUEST,beardedbruce 13 Jun 09 - 10:31 AM
CarolC 14 Jun 09 - 02:40 PM
beardedbruce 14 Jun 09 - 03:14 PM
Teribus 18 Jun 09 - 01:13 PM
CarolC 18 Jun 09 - 01:31 PM
GUEST,beardedbruce 18 Jun 09 - 05:35 PM
Teribus 19 Jun 09 - 01:25 PM
GUEST,beardedbruce 22 Jun 09 - 08:28 AM
GUEST,beardedbruce 25 Jun 09 - 06:38 AM
GUEST,beardedbruce 25 Jun 09 - 06:44 AM
GUEST,beardedbruce 25 Jun 09 - 12:28 PM
ard mhacha 25 Jun 09 - 02:25 PM
GUEST,beardedbruce 30 Jun 09 - 06:47 AM
GUEST,beardedbruce 02 Jul 09 - 06:11 AM
GUEST,beardedbruce 02 Jul 09 - 10:02 AM
GUEST,beardedbruce 08 Jul 09 - 05:23 PM
GUEST,beardedbruce 15 Jul 09 - 02:30 PM
beardedbruce 16 Jul 09 - 03:31 PM
beardedbruce 17 Jul 09 - 07:28 PM
beardedbruce 23 Jul 09 - 10:49 AM
beardedbruce 24 Aug 09 - 05:26 PM
Donuel 25 Aug 09 - 12:45 AM
GUEST,beardedbruce 28 Aug 09 - 07:50 PM
GUEST,beardedbruce 28 Aug 09 - 09:12 PM
GUEST,beardedbruce 03 Sep 09 - 06:26 PM
beardedbruce 11 Sep 09 - 12:17 PM
CarolC 11 Sep 09 - 01:10 PM
GUEST,beardedbruce 11 Sep 09 - 01:50 PM
CarolC 11 Sep 09 - 02:00 PM
GUEST,beardedbruce 11 Sep 09 - 03:29 PM
CarolC 11 Sep 09 - 03:33 PM
beardedbruce 11 Sep 09 - 04:58 PM
CarolC 12 Sep 09 - 05:00 AM
GUEST,beardedbruce 14 Sep 09 - 08:48 AM
GUEST,beardedbruce 15 Sep 09 - 01:34 PM
GUEST,beardedbruce 17 Sep 09 - 01:48 PM
GUEST,beardebruce 18 Sep 09 - 06:41 AM
GUEST,beardedbruce 21 Sep 09 - 02:16 PM
beardedbruce 29 Sep 09 - 06:17 AM
beardedbruce 08 Feb 10 - 12:32 PM
beardedbruce 08 Feb 10 - 12:34 PM
beardedbruce 12 Feb 10 - 01:07 PM
beardedbruce 18 Feb 10 - 01:02 PM
beardedbruce 20 Feb 10 - 10:54 AM
beardedbruce 30 Mar 10 - 12:03 PM
CarolC 31 Mar 10 - 08:41 PM
beardedbruce 11 May 10 - 12:27 PM
beardedbruce 11 May 10 - 12:28 PM
beardedbruce 11 May 10 - 12:30 PM
beardedbruce 11 May 10 - 12:43 PM
beardedbruce 14 May 10 - 12:42 PM
beardedbruce 18 May 10 - 03:46 PM
beardedbruce 18 May 10 - 03:49 PM
beardedbruce 20 May 10 - 07:14 PM
beardedbruce 26 May 10 - 11:11 AM
Rapparee 26 May 10 - 12:41 PM
gnu 26 May 10 - 04:04 PM
beardedbruce 26 May 10 - 08:08 PM
Rapparee 26 May 10 - 08:20 PM
beardedbruce 01 Jun 10 - 12:29 PM
beardedbruce 01 Jun 10 - 12:30 PM
beardedbruce 03 Jun 10 - 01:24 PM
Rapparee 03 Jun 10 - 07:07 PM
Little Hawk 04 Jun 10 - 01:17 PM
beardedbruce 04 Jun 10 - 01:25 PM
Little Hawk 04 Jun 10 - 03:12 PM
GUEST,beardedbruce 04 Jun 10 - 03:24 PM
Jim McLean 04 Jun 10 - 03:53 PM
Little Hawk 04 Jun 10 - 03:55 PM
Rapparee 04 Jun 10 - 04:59 PM
beardedbruce 04 Jun 10 - 05:14 PM
beardedbruce 04 Jun 10 - 05:27 PM
Little Hawk 04 Jun 10 - 07:14 PM
Rapparee 04 Jun 10 - 07:59 PM
Little Hawk 04 Jun 10 - 08:19 PM
beardedbruce 09 Jun 10 - 03:37 PM
CarolC 09 Jun 10 - 06:56 PM
Rapparee 09 Jun 10 - 09:58 PM
beardedbruce 10 Jun 10 - 10:51 AM
bobad 12 Jun 10 - 03:29 PM
CarolC 12 Jun 10 - 10:00 PM
beardedbruce 13 Jun 10 - 08:42 AM
CarolC 13 Jun 10 - 06:13 PM
CarolC 14 Jun 10 - 01:33 AM
CarolC 14 Jun 10 - 01:55 AM
beardedbruce 14 Jun 10 - 06:31 AM
beardedbruce 14 Jun 10 - 08:18 AM
CarolC 14 Jun 10 - 01:19 PM
beardedbruce 14 Jun 10 - 01:22 PM
CarolC 14 Jun 10 - 01:31 PM
beardedbruce 14 Jun 10 - 01:39 PM
CarolC 14 Jun 10 - 01:49 PM
beardedbruce 16 Jun 10 - 03:33 PM
beardedbruce 21 Jun 10 - 11:48 AM
beardedbruce 21 Jun 10 - 11:52 AM
beardedbruce 21 Jun 10 - 11:53 AM
beardedbruce 25 Jun 10 - 01:48 PM
Rapparee 25 Jun 10 - 08:19 PM
beardedbruce 28 Jun 10 - 03:43 PM
beardedbruce 12 Jul 10 - 12:23 PM
beardedbruce 12 Jul 10 - 01:30 PM
Rapparee 12 Jul 10 - 11:12 PM
bobad 24 Jul 10 - 08:18 AM
beardedbruce 26 Jul 10 - 12:49 PM
beardedbruce 26 Jul 10 - 12:53 PM
beardedbruce 26 Jul 10 - 01:00 PM
beardedbruce 26 Jul 10 - 01:03 PM
beardedbruce 26 Jul 10 - 01:05 PM
Rapparee 26 Jul 10 - 01:08 PM
beardedbruce 26 Jul 10 - 01:16 PM
Rapparee 26 Jul 10 - 02:21 PM
beardedbruce 26 Jul 10 - 02:59 PM
Rapparee 26 Jul 10 - 06:18 PM
beardedbruce 06 Sep 10 - 12:32 PM
beardedbruce 06 Sep 10 - 12:36 PM
beardedbruce 08 Sep 10 - 11:55 AM
beardedbruce 24 Sep 10 - 12:21 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 24 Sep 10 - 02:43 PM
Rapparee 24 Sep 10 - 10:12 PM
bobad 24 Sep 10 - 10:26 PM
GUEST,Steamin' Willie 25 Sep 10 - 05:40 AM
beardedbruce 06 Oct 10 - 12:29 PM
beardedbruce 11 Nov 10 - 11:53 AM
beardedbruce 09 Dec 10 - 04:53 PM
beardedbruce 10 Dec 10 - 06:44 PM
GUEST,Chongo Chimp 25 Apr 11 - 06:26 PM
beardedbruce 02 Sep 11 - 04:18 PM
Teribus 02 Sep 11 - 06:07 PM
GUEST,beardedbruce 02 Nov 11 - 12:31 PM
GUEST,beardedbruce 02 Nov 11 - 12:32 PM
GUEST 03 Nov 11 - 07:45 AM
GUEST,beardedbruce 07 Nov 11 - 09:59 AM
GUEST,beardedbruce 08 Nov 11 - 03:29 PM
Little Hawk 08 Nov 11 - 05:09 PM
bobad 08 Nov 11 - 05:22 PM
GUEST,beardedbruce 09 Nov 11 - 07:28 AM
bobad 09 Nov 11 - 07:47 AM
GUEST,Patsy 09 Nov 11 - 08:10 AM
GUEST,beardedbruce 09 Nov 11 - 09:24 AM
Keith A of Hertford 09 Nov 11 - 09:35 AM
GUEST,beardedbruce 09 Nov 11 - 10:41 AM
beardedbruce 23 Feb 12 - 07:36 AM
beardedbruce 16 Mar 12 - 08:58 AM
RobbieWilson 16 Mar 12 - 10:51 PM
beardedbruce 31 May 12 - 11:21 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 01 Jun 12 - 09:30 AM
beardedbruce 05 Mar 13 - 08:15 AM
beardedbruce 05 Mar 13 - 08:41 AM
Rapparee 05 Mar 13 - 09:01 AM
beardedbruce 05 Mar 13 - 09:02 AM
beardedbruce 05 Mar 13 - 09:04 AM
beardedbruce 05 Mar 13 - 11:46 AM
beardedbruce 05 Mar 13 - 11:50 AM
beardedbruce 05 Mar 13 - 11:59 AM
Greg F. 05 Mar 13 - 12:15 PM
beardedbruce 05 Mar 13 - 12:42 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 05 Mar 13 - 12:59 PM
Rapparee 05 Mar 13 - 01:12 PM
beardedbruce 07 Mar 13 - 08:30 AM
beardedbruce 07 Mar 13 - 08:39 AM
GUEST,A Regular 07 Mar 13 - 09:51 AM
Rapparee 07 Mar 13 - 10:27 AM
GUEST,A Regular 07 Mar 13 - 10:31 AM
GUEST,A Regular 07 Mar 13 - 10:46 AM
Rapparee 07 Mar 13 - 11:35 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 08 Mar 13 - 05:48 AM
beardedbruce 11 Mar 13 - 10:41 AM
bobad 11 Mar 13 - 11:10 AM
Little Hawk 11 Mar 13 - 12:19 PM
beardedbruce 11 Mar 13 - 12:24 PM
Little Hawk 11 Mar 13 - 12:34 PM
beardedbruce 11 Mar 13 - 01:21 PM
beardedbruce 11 Mar 13 - 01:24 PM
beardedbruce 12 Mar 13 - 08:22 AM
beardedbruce 12 Mar 13 - 08:28 AM
beardedbruce 12 Mar 13 - 12:03 PM
beardedbruce 14 Mar 13 - 08:26 AM
beardedbruce 14 Mar 13 - 12:07 PM
beardedbruce 14 Mar 13 - 12:09 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 15 Mar 13 - 03:21 AM
Little Hawk 15 Mar 13 - 09:39 PM
GUEST,999 16 Mar 13 - 02:41 PM
beardedbruce 18 Mar 13 - 12:44 PM
beardedbruce 27 Mar 13 - 08:51 AM
beardedbruce 29 Mar 13 - 09:31 AM
beardedbruce 29 Mar 13 - 09:40 AM
beardedbruce 29 Mar 13 - 09:42 AM
bobad 29 Mar 13 - 08:48 PM
ollaimh 30 Mar 13 - 09:41 AM
Greg F. 30 Mar 13 - 09:42 AM
Greg F. 30 Mar 13 - 05:29 PM
beardedbruce 01 Apr 13 - 08:27 AM
Sawzaw 08 Mar 14 - 08:54 PM
bobad 23 Aug 14 - 08:42 AM
beardedbruce 15 Dec 15 - 10:35 AM
GUEST 15 Dec 15 - 10:54 AM
GUEST 15 Dec 15 - 11:05 AM
Keith A of Hertford 15 Dec 15 - 11:39 AM
Greg F. 15 Dec 15 - 11:45 AM
Keith A of Hertford 15 Dec 15 - 11:46 AM
Greg F. 15 Dec 15 - 01:03 PM
GUEST 15 Dec 15 - 01:18 PM
Steve Shaw 15 Dec 15 - 01:26 PM
GUEST 15 Dec 15 - 01:29 PM
Steve Shaw 15 Dec 15 - 02:43 PM
Keith A of Hertford 15 Dec 15 - 03:28 PM
GUEST 15 Dec 15 - 03:32 PM
GUEST,HiLo 15 Dec 15 - 06:28 PM
Steve Shaw 15 Dec 15 - 07:15 PM
GUEST 17 Dec 15 - 07:53 PM
GUEST 18 Dec 15 - 05:55 AM
beardedbruce 18 Dec 15 - 09:11 AM
Jim Carroll 18 Dec 15 - 09:59 AM
beardedbruce 18 Dec 15 - 10:17 AM
Greg F. 18 Dec 15 - 10:19 AM
beardedbruce 18 Dec 15 - 10:23 AM
beardedbruce 18 Dec 15 - 10:31 AM
Jim Carroll 18 Dec 15 - 11:18 AM
GUEST 18 Dec 15 - 05:01 PM
GUEST 18 Dec 15 - 05:44 PM
Steve Shaw 18 Dec 15 - 05:46 PM
Steve Shaw 18 Dec 15 - 05:47 PM
Keith A of Hertford 19 Dec 15 - 06:32 AM
Jim Carroll 19 Dec 15 - 06:39 AM
GUEST 19 Dec 15 - 07:22 AM
GUEST 19 Dec 15 - 07:42 AM
GUEST,Musket 19 Dec 15 - 08:01 AM
Jim Carroll 19 Dec 15 - 08:04 AM
Keith A of Hertford 19 Dec 15 - 10:32 AM
Jim Carroll 19 Dec 15 - 11:45 AM
Keith A of Hertford 19 Dec 15 - 12:50 PM
Jim Carroll 19 Dec 15 - 01:10 PM
Keith A of Hertford 19 Dec 15 - 01:24 PM
Keith A of Hertford 19 Dec 15 - 01:39 PM
GUEST 19 Dec 15 - 02:09 PM
Jim Carroll 19 Dec 15 - 02:27 PM
GUEST 19 Dec 15 - 04:49 PM
Jim Carroll 19 Dec 15 - 07:11 PM
GUEST 19 Dec 15 - 10:17 PM
GUEST,Musket 20 Dec 15 - 04:21 AM
Jim Carroll 20 Dec 15 - 04:42 AM
Keith A of Hertford 20 Dec 15 - 08:23 AM
Jim Carroll 20 Dec 15 - 09:33 AM
Keith A of Hertford 20 Dec 15 - 09:50 AM
GUEST 20 Dec 15 - 10:15 AM
Jim Carroll 20 Dec 15 - 10:21 AM
Jim Carroll 20 Dec 15 - 10:53 AM

Share Thread
more
Lyrics & Knowledge Search [Advanced]
DT  Forum
Sort (Forum) by:relevance date
DT Lyrics:













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

Any guesses?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

France, hopefully.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

Why not both?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

Iran.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

Korea is my vote.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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'?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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).


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

Thanks dianavan.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

Glockamorra.

DougR


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

?????


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

Monaco?

DougR


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

Well? What would Canada do?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

brucie,

How cute and original....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

No thank you.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

Sudan for sure. Logistics, IMO.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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..


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

May 7 update.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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/


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?"


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

Lichtenstein.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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!!!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

So Iran it is then.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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).


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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." "


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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." "


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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....
:)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

Laxey Wheel, Isle of Man


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

wot?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

Apology accepted.
Thanks


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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! ;-)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

Welcome to the right!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

Thanks, eh? ;-)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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" ?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

(my last was for beardedbruce)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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. "


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.

;-)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

LOL


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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] (202) 331-0590
FAX: [1] (202) 331-3221

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 "


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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).


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Aug 06 - 12:05 AM


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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/


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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"?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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......


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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! ;-)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 Nov 06 - 07:30 PM

refresh- WAKE UP, Ron Davies....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Feb 07 - 07:54 PM

Thanks, Jude.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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!'?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

Terib:

Don't be silly.

A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

UN report on Iran- re NPT


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

sorry, NPT.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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 ....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

That was me...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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."

...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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) ;-)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

No answer,then,beardedbruce?






       Ivor


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 07:4