BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Nickhere
Date: 29 Mar 07 - 07:38 PM

The principal purpose of the NPT was to limit membership of the nuclear club. Several countries had already acquired nuclear devices, so nothing much could be done about that. The cat was out of the bag. If the USA had had its way, it would have been the ONLY country with nukes, and since it showed a willingness to use them, no doubt it would be using at least the threat of them to determine world policy today. We are spared the worst of Big Bully because several other countries got them too, and the centre of power was dispersed. On the down side we were (and are) left with the threat of nuclear annihilation ever since if triggerr fingers get itchy.

Israel didn't sign up to the NPT so it could developp its own weapons. It didn't need the NPT to get aid as it was (and is) already being bankrolled by the US to the tune of several billion dollars a year. Plus a number of US physicists used 'right of return' to head off to Israel and bring their tech know-how with them. Britian the USA and the rest signed the NPT to stop the spread of a coveted technology, but had no intention of scrapping their own weapons (except old redundant ones).

So the NPT is a load of old cobblers, in short. Mulitalteral nuclear disarmament is the only way to guarantee our future, but who's going to make the first move? No-one wants to be first and warmongerers like Bush etc., are simply upping the stakes with their aggression. Iran sees what happens when North Korea is presumed to have nukes - it's treated just like any other gentleman member of the club. As I've said before, the best nuclear 'deterrent' is to cut back on some of the fear-mongering and posturing and start practising what is preached.

L.H is spot on to say the NPT is a load of legalese being used as a stick to beat Iran. The invasion of Iraq was,n't sanctioned by the UN, but America and Britain just went ahead and did it anyway and to hell with legal niceities. 'Legality' is a term they use to browbeat the 'other guy' into doing what they want, an excuse to attack him when he doesn't, and something that doesn't apply to oneself, unless it produces the result you want.

Iran will probably be invaded anyway, nukes or no, because a cabal of US and other 'western' politicians have decided it's time to re-draw (yet again) the map of the Middle East to suit their current needs. The unfortunate indians - I mean, citizens, who happen to be in the way of their latest project will probably put up some kind of a fight and be flattened, just like the Iraqis, God help them. Meanwhile, lost in all the talk about 'spreading democracy' (makes democracy sound like some kind of virus, doesn't it?) and 'making the world a safer place' is Robert Mugabe, beating and shooting opposition parties and running is country into the ground. But, the 19th century has passed, and the West has already looted Africa for whatever was worthwhile, and so you won't see any marines turning up in Zimbabwe to save the beleagured people from an oppressive dictator.


B.Finn: "Which is what the US should do with Bush, Rummey, Rice, the Wolf, Cheney & others! Arrest them before they start of WWIII"

Well said. Well said!

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Mar 07 - 07:52 PM

"L.H is spot on to say the NPT is a load of legalese being used as a stick to beat Iran. The invasion of Iraq was,n't sanctioned by the UN, but America and Britain just went ahead and did it anyway and to hell with legal niceities. 'Legality' is a term they use to browbeat the 'other guy' into doing what they want, an excuse to attack him when he doesn't, and something that doesn't apply to oneself, unless it produces the result you want."

Well said, Nickhere. That is exactly my point. Legalities are only quoted by the USA and Britain when they happen to work in their favor. They are ignored and violated when they don't. Same goes for everyone else too. ;-) All governments who are bent on aggression essentially quote various legalities in a completely cynical fashion whenever it is to their advantage to do so...and ignore and violate other legalities when they are to their disadvantage. That is standard behaviour in the business of Realpolitick. Excuses are always made for why it's "okay", but it's just a PR game for the sake of the congregation. One needs to fool one's public into thinking a war is necessary, after all, or morale on the homefront could become a real problem, and could threaten someone's political career.

It's laughable to see some petty and essentially minor technical legality being used to justify a far more serious major illegality...like launching an illegal war of aggression, and that is what Mr Bush and Mr Blair did when they last went to war. I expect they will do it again. I would be quite surprised if they did not.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Mar 07 - 07:52 PM

Nickhere, your post of 29 Mar 07 - 07:38 PM.

Properly categorised - without doubt the greatest load of bulshit I think I have ever had the misfortune to read on this forum.

Complete and utter crap from start to finish - Well said indeed!! - Absolute drivel more like.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Mar 07 - 08:02 PM

Nice to see that our roles remain so consistent, isn't it, mate? We each think the same of the other's perceptions of reality. It all comes down to who you trust and who you don't in this world: Who you think the "good guys" are and who you think the "bad guys" are, in other words. And that is a matter largely dependant on the whole previous history of one's own personal life experiences from the cradle to the present moment. You are an instinctive loyalist to the very Anglo-American governmental forces which I consider to be (at present) the greatest oppressors in the world.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 29 Mar 07 - 11:56 PM

Once in awhile, we get to the truth of the matter. Nickhere and Littlehawk are absolutely right, teribus, and you are so dumbfounded that you just mutter and splutter all over the page.

You may not want to admit it, teribus, but the rest of the world already knows,

"The invasion of Iraq was,n't sanctioned by the UN, but America and Britain just went ahead and did it anyway and to hell with legal niceities. 'Legality' is a term they use to browbeat the 'other guy' into doing what they want, an excuse to attack him when he doesn't, and something that doesn't apply to oneself, unless it produces the result you want."

Sweeping it under the carpet is not going work anymore. Grow up and stop hiding behind your 'daddy'.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Nickhere
Date: 30 Mar 07 - 02:46 PM

Teribus: "Nickhere, your post of 29 Mar 07 - 07:38 PM.Properly categorised - without doubt the greatest load of bulshit I think I have ever had the misfortune to read on this forum.Complete and utter crap from start to finish - Well said indeed!! - Absolute drivel more like"

Always delighted to oblige, Teribus! ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,John T. M
Date: 30 Mar 07 - 09:02 PM

This limp wristed tool is gone,He is a joke. His Saudi allies have abandoneed him. His secy of Defense defies him, so does Condi. Congress!!! defies him. He is a man in the wicker basket waiting for someone to light the match. He is gone. Along with Gone zal is.. There will be no war in Iran. The tool can't manage it. Count the days.
so let it be written so let it be done.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Apr 07 - 08:04 AM

White House: 'We are very concerned' about Iran's nukes
POSTED: 1:26 a.m. EDT, April 10, 2007
Story Highlights• Iran has reached "industrial level" nuclear production, Ahmadinejad says
• Iranian president says program to be used for "expansion of peace and stability"
• Iran could reconsider Non-Proliferation Treaty membership, chief negotiator warns
• U.S. State Department spokesman says Iran is defying international community
Adjust font size:
TEHRAN, Iran (CNN) -- Iran's president announced Monday that his country has begun production of nuclear fuel on an "industrial level."

"Iran has succeeded in development to attain production at an industrial level," Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said in a speech at the Natanz uranium enrichment facility in central Iran.

The announcement came on the first anniversary of the start of uranium enrichment at the plant.

President Bush contends Iran is using its program to develop nuclear weapons.

Leaders of European nations have expressed similar alarm.

"We are very concerned," said White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe. "We call on the Iranian regime to comply with its obligations to the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) and U.N. Security Council."

Monday, Ahmadinejad said, "With great pride, I announce that as of today, our dear country, Iran, is among the countries of the world that produces the industrial level of nuclear fuel." (Watch the 'concerned' reaction to Iran's nuclear news )

Iran: Nuke program 'irreversible'
Iran's leader vowed it will be used for energy "and for the expansion of peace and stability," adding that the goal of "progress" for Iran is "irreversible."

Ahmadinejad's speech came on what Iran called its National Nuclear Feast, designed to send a message to the world that the nation will not halt its nuclear activities despite calls for it to do so from many Western governments, particularly the United States, and sanctions imposed by the U.N. Security Council.

The IAEA -- the U.N. nuclear watchdog -- has said it cannot confirm that Iran's nuclear activities are for peaceful purposes. IAEA officials say Iran has failed to cooperate with inspectors.

U.S. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack called Monday's events "another signal Iran is in defiance of the international community."

He added that it shows the international community has been right in levying sanctions.

McCormack called it a "missed opportunity" for Iran, arguing Iranian leaders should have announced they were suspending their uranium enrichment program in response to the international concerns.

No one disputes Iran's right to a peaceful nuclear energy program, he said, and added, "There is a negotiation alternative."

But Ahmadinejad said Monday there has been "no evidence of violation in our activities."

"Despite the cooperation of our country and its transparency, despite the fact that our measures are legal, we have witnessed controversy created by some powers who benefit from the nuclear fuel cycle themselves," he said.

He committed much of his speech to slamming the "enemies" of Iran, who he said don't want to see it make "progress."

"They have even resorted to the Security Council and tried to turn it into a tool to prevent the nuclear development of the Islamic Republic of Iran."

Before Ahmadinejad spoke, Vice President Gholamreza Aghazadeh said, "We have gathered, thanking Almighty God for the introduction of the uranium enrichment program to the industrial phase, and once again we thank almighty God for allowing us to attain industrial enrichment plans."

Iran gave no indication it intends to capitulate to international demands.

At schools throughout the country, bells were rung Monday in celebration, and children chanted slogans, such as: "Nuclear energy is an inalienable right of the Iranian nation" and "No country has the right to deprive Iran of its indisputable right."

"The Iranian nation is in need of nuclear fuel cycle," state-run news agency IRNA said.

At the United Nations in New York, Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon held out hope for a resolution to the dispute.

"I sincerely hope that even at this time when (the) Iranian government is undergoing Security Council sanctions, that it could engage in dialogue with the international community," he said.

"This is very important for any country to fully comply with the Security Council resolutions. I urge (the) Iranian government to do so."

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Apr 07 - 01:59 PM

Iran vows to expand nuclear plans
POSTED: 9:06 a.m. EDT, April 10, 2007

Story Highlights• Iran planning to expand nuclear program, atomic energy head says
• Infrastructure at Natanz nuclear facility for 50,000 centrifuges, Aghazadeh says
• Iran has reached "industrial level" nuclear production, Ahmadinejad says
• IAEA says it cannot confirm Iran's nuclear activities for peaceful purposes

TEHRAN, Iran (CNN) -- A day after Iran announced it had begun production of nuclear fuel on an "industrial level," the head of the country's atomic energy organization said Iran had plans to greatly expand its nuclear program.

"Iran's uranium enrichment program in Natanz does not only aim to install 3,000 centrifuges, but 50,000 centrifuges," Iran's Atomic Energy Organization chief, Gholam Reza Aghazadeh said, according to the state-run IRNA news agency. Centrifuges are used in the process of enriching uranium.

The Natanz nuclear facility is located in central Iran, about 200 miles (320 kilometers) south of Tehran.

Iranian plans to expand its enrichment process to 50,000 centrifuges goes well beyond any previously announced aspirations by Tehran.

"I did not want to create any uncertainty about the nuclear program," Aghazadeh said. "But it is a fact that all of our infrastructure (in Natanz) ... is planned for 50,000 centrifuges."

According to Aghazadeh, Iran's Atomic Energy Organization "intends to develop, optimize and update nuclear technology in the future," including an international tender for construction of two 1,000-megawatt power plants, which he said will be announced in the coming days.

On Monday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced his country has begun production of nuclear fuel on an "industrial level." (Timeline: Iran's nuclear program)

"Iran has succeeded in development to attain production at an industrial level," Ahmadinejad said in a speech at Natanz to mark the anniversary of the start of uranium enrichment at the plant.

"With great pride, I announce that as of today, our dear country, Iran, is among the countries of the world that produces the industrial level of nuclear fuel."

He vowed the fuel would be used for energy "and for the expansion of peace and stability," adding that the goal of "progress" for Iran was "irreversible."

Ahmadinejad's speech came on what Iran called its National Nuclear Feast, designed to send a message to the world that the nation would not halt its nuclear activities despite calls for it to do so from many Western governments, particularly the United States, and sanctions imposed by the U.N. Security Council.

The IAEA -- the U.N. nuclear watchdog -- has said it cannot confirm Iran's nuclear activities are for peaceful purposes. IAEA officials say Iran has failed to cooperate with inspectors. (Watch the 'concerned' reaction to Iran's nuclear news )

But Ahmadinejad said Monday there had been "no evidence of violation in our activities."

"Despite the cooperation of our country and its transparency, despite the fact that our measures are legal, we have witnessed controversy created by some powers who benefit from the nuclear fuel cycle themselves," he said.

He committed much of his speech to slamming the "enemies" of Iran, who he said didn't want to see it make "progress."

"They have even resorted to the Security Council and tried to turn it into a tool to prevent the nuclear development of the Islamic Republic of Iran."

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Dickey
Date: 13 Apr 07 - 02:32 PM

Regime Change In Iran Is On Its Way

Ghazal Omid - 4/14/2007

"Regime change in Iran is on its way, from within. However, an outside attack on Iran will give the Mullahs exactly what they want. Iran has, rightfully, been identified as the main target in the US Global War on Terror. The regime has fostered the brutal insurgency in Iraq, nurtured terror groups like Hezbollah and Hamas, and committed many other violations of international law. The recent kidnapping/release of the British Marines may make an attack seem a tantalizing quick fix.

This is a defensible position, and no one wants this government removed more than the Iranians living there now. For twenty-five years of my own life, I was taught to hate Americans, Israelis, and the rest of the Western World. At age fourteen, my challenge to the regime's watch dogs was, "I am not going to hate someone I don't even know!" This, and other simple forms of resistance, sacrificed my dream of living inside my own country. When I fled Iran, under death threats from the Sepah Pasdaran, Iranians didn't dare to speak against the regime publicly. Today, people are on the streets every day; they have abandoned fear, and are fighting tooth and nail to start their revolution.

Yes, I said revolution! In the past two months, there have been at least three major protests in Iran.

There have been many clashes between the Iranian people and the government's agents; they are fed up with a government that is banking on war with the West to guarantee its continued existence

Unfortunately, US politicians have either never read, or have forgotten, Persian history. Unlike the rest of the Arab world, our national fervor as Persians, not our religious fervor as Muslims, plays the preeminent role. We are compelled to fight the enemy of our country, even if we know the attacking nation has the best intentions.

The government of Iran knows this all too well, and exploited patriotism during the Iran-Iraq war, when millions of Iranian young men, who could now rise up and challenge the current regime, died on battlefields as their lives were just beginning...."

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Apr 07 - 02:53 PM

the rest of the article...


"Many more perished for speaking out against the government, inside Evin and other prisons. I know this intimately because I represent a group of nineteen political prisoners, many of whom are on death lists. This is how Iran treats its own people.

Yet, if the US attacks Iran, the Iranian government's fondest wish will be granted, and many more young men will die.

A US attack on Iran will spur the tyrants to genocide, killing any Iranian standing up to challenge the government. Unlike US tolerance of opposition in wartime, Iranian rules of war state that anyone speaking out against the government has committed treason. Punishment for such a crime in Iran is a swift and brutal death.

Knowing this, the US is preparing for a massive attack, and those who can read a map and understand military strategies can see it. Joel Pousson, independent military analyst, has identified armadas now in the Arabian Sea as well as in the Eastern Mediterranean. Perhaps they are to attack Iran, and guard against a second front should Hizbollah attack Israel and the government of Lebanon. He reports training exercises on the long-quiet ranges of Ft Carson, Colorado, American reservists receiving unexpected activation orders, and offices tasked with protecting reservists' civilian jobs suddenly receiving additional staff.
Preparations are underway, but it is unclear whether the US will make the smart strike on Hizbollah and their terror web, or head from Iraq into Iran, where the government is preparing the same sort of IED and suicide attacks the US has faced in Iraq.

Attacking Hizbollah, eliminating their terror training camps and logistical support will prevent the terrorism campaign awaiting the West if Iran is attacked. Iran can be cut off from its agents, and the West and the Siniora government in Lebanon can eliminate Hizbollah, stabilizing that young democracy.

If, however, the US attacks Iran, the Straits of Hormuz could be blocked with just a couple of ships sunk. Thousands of university students, will be forced to don suicide vests, and will deploy as the terrorists that shuttled from Damascus airport for training and final dispositions in Iran launch attacks throughout the Mid East, Europe, and possibly, inside America.

The smart move, if a military move is to be made now, is to attack Hizbollah, economically isolate the Iranian government, and fund legitimate resistance groups in Iran to remove the Mullahs without the loss of one American life.

America is a smart nation. The leaders who call the shots can make the smart decision.

Ghazal Omid is an author of Living in Hell, human rights and women's rights advocate, and an expert on Iran and Shiah Islam."

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 13 Apr 07 - 03:45 PM

If there is anything that America should understand it is this:

"Unlike the rest of the Arab world, our national fervor as Persians, not our religious fervor as Muslims, plays the preeminent role."

From the same article.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Apr 07 - 03:53 PM

I sort of like

"Attacking Hizbollah, eliminating their terror training camps and logistical support will prevent the terrorism campaign awaiting the West if Iran is attacked. Iran can be cut off from its agents, and the West and the Siniora government in Lebanon can eliminate Hizbollah, stabilizing that young democracy."

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Apr 07 - 05:53 AM

According to what is being reported by MSM it looks as though the North Koreans are up to their old tricks again, as yet another agreed deadline for actions on their part slips past, while they labouriously "verify" whether or not their 25million US$ (unforged) has been defrosted (normally this would only take a single phone call).

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Apr 07 - 09:27 AM

North Korea nuclear deadline slips By CHARLES HUTZLER, Associated Press Writer
28 minutes ago



BEIJING -       North Korea missed a Saturday deadline for shutting down its main nuclear reactor, and a key U.S. negotiator said the country must keep the disarmament program from foundering.

The United States and other governments involved in six-nation talks on North Korea's nuclear programs said the slipping of the 60-day deadline was significant, but not yet fatal to a two-month-old agreement that laid out a timetable for disarmament.

"It's time for the North Koreans to get moving on their issues," Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill, the chief U.S. negotiator, told reporters after meeting in Beijing with his Chinese counterpart.

Hill ticked off the unmet conditions of the February agreement: North Korea's failure to shutter its Yongbyon reactor and allow verification by U.N. inspectors, and       South Korea's resulting refusal to ship 50,000 tons of fuel oil to the North.

Saturday's missed deadline marked the latest setback for an agreement that, when reached in February, offered the prospect of disarming the world's newest declared nuclear power.

North Korea successfully tested a nuclear bomb in October.

But the timetable was tripped up by a dispute over North Korean deposits frozen in a tiny Macau bank, which was blacklisted by Washington for allegedly abetting money-laundering and counterfeiting. North Korea refused to make any move until the funds issue was resolved, but the matter — which was supposed to have been resolved in mid-March — dragged on until this past week.

Acknowledging that the frozen funds issue had bedeviled the talks, Hill said that the funds were now ready, and that North Korea should tap them and take steps to meet its other commitments.

North Korea's Foreign Ministry, in a statement released by the government news agency, said Friday that it would carry out its side of the agreement "when the lifting of the sanction is proved to be a reality."

The North Korean capital was consumed by preparations for Sunday's birthday of the communist nation's late founder, Kim Il Sung, and the country had no response to the latest comments from Hill.

In a typically truculent, 70-minute speech on state television, North Korea's No. 2 leader, Kim Yong Nam, vowed to defend the communist country from U.S. and Japanese attack.

Earlier in the day, Hill had struck a more pessimistic note, saying the North's lack of action over the 60-day milestone had sapped momentum from the disarmament process.

After talks with his Chinese counterpart, Wu Dawei, Hill said he was persuaded "to show patience for a couple more days."

Once that's done, he expected that negotiators for the six countries involved — South Korea, Japan and Russia as well as the U.S., North Korea and China — would likely meet again before the end of the month to discuss additional the next phases in disarming North Korea.

South Korea, which supports rapprochement with the North, played down the failure to meet the 60-day deadline, calling it a technicality.

"What is important is whether there is any wavering in political will," South Korea's chief nuclear negotiator, Chun Yung-woo, said in a telephone interview.

____

AP reporters Jae-soon Chang in Seoul and Mari Yamaguchi in Tokyo contributed to this report.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Nickhere
Date: 14 Apr 07 - 09:21 PM

One thing I can't figure: Iran MUST know that it's open nuclear programme is an open invitation to be attacked by the USA, whether it's for peaceful purposes or not. The USA invaded Iraq on a far lesser pretext - the non-existent WMD and imaginary links to al-Qaeda. The Iranian president saves US intelligence a load of work by giving step-by-step updates about the progress of his nuclear programme, while evn listing places where it's going on (Nanatz). Meanwhile US battleships assemble in the Straits of Hormuz like schoolboys by the bike shed in the school yard getting ready for a scheduled fight. What is the Iranian president thinking? If I was conducting a nucelar programme for any reason in today's world and if I was not a US ally, I'd be doing it as secretly as possible. Indeed I'd be doing it as many miles underground as possible, out of sight of spy satellites and nosy UN inspectors. I'd wait until I actually had a nuclear bomb or two, then I'd announce it to the world in a spectacular above-ground blast no-one could deny, when it'd be too late to stop me.

None of this seems to add up, unless Ahmadinejad actually WANTS the USA to attack Iran. Maybe that'll be the straw that breaks the camel's back and starts all out war between Islamic countries and the West, dragging in those countries like Russia and China unwilling to see almost ALL the main oil sources under US control......World War Three anyone?

"Today, people are on the streets every day; they have abandoned fear, and are fighting tooth and nail to start their revolution"

And if the US invade, all of these protesting people will probably be slaughtered along with everyine else. Frying pan to fire....just like Iraq.

Meanwhile another story slips under the radar, how the USA allowed North Korea to ship arms to Ethiopia despite its own lobbying to sucessfully get a UN embargo placed on North Korea for continuing its nuclear programme last autumn. The arms shipment came after the UN sanctions and was done with US knowledge and approval. Mainly because the Ethiopians intended using them to fight Islamist groups along the border. Rules and laws are very flexible things indeed when they 'need' to be!!

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Peace
Date: 15 Apr 07 - 01:03 AM

The American commander in the Pacific says he hes enough troops to handle North Korea shoud it invade the South. He has 128,000 and South Korea has 690,000. Doesn't sound much like folks thinking about peace.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Peace
Date: 15 Apr 07 - 01:09 AM

Sorry. He has 28,000 . . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 15 Apr 07 - 03:14 AM

Nickhere - Ahmadinejad is a politician with an election coming up. He ran on a platform of bringing nuclear power to the Iranian people to improve their civilian infrastructure. He doesn't really care what the outside world thinks, he is focussed on getting votes inside Iran. All of his posturing is politically motivated. He does not make policy and he does not command the military.

He's sort of a one man horse and pony show. I think everyone takes him entirely too seriously. I also think that as far as the Iranian people are concerned, his political life is over. I just hope the U.S. doesn't jump the gun. If they refrain from intervening at this point, the Iranians will take care of their own problems and Ahmadinejad is one of them.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Apr 07 - 03:34 AM

Something that Nickhere can't figure:

"Iran MUST know that it's open nuclear programme is an open invitation to be attacked by the USA, whether it's for peaceful purposes or not."

A number of points that Nickhere omits to mention that would help him figure things out:

1) Iran's nuclear programme has been far from "open" - One glance through last November's IAEA report to the UN which details Iran's non-compliance under the terms and conditions of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty illustrates that.

2) "The Iranian president saves US intelligence a load of work by giving step-by-step updates about the progress of his nuclear programme, while evn listing places where it's going on (Nanatz)."

Perhaps Nickhere was elsewhere, incommunicado, when the existence of Iran's secret uranium enrichment facilities were revealed in 2002. But just to put Nick right on the matter, no member of Iran's government or member of any of their ruling councils had anything to do with exposing the existence of those sites, that was down to a number of Iranian dissidents who were and still are extremely worried about Iran's nuclear programme and where it might lead.

3) I do not believe that there are many in this world that truly believe that Iran's pursuit of nuclear power has any other goal than to acquire nuclear weapons as quickly as possible.

4) To date the United States of America has not threatened Iran. Iran on the other hand has beeen threatening America on a regular basis (Every Friday) since 1979 and has advocated that a sovereign state and recognised member of the United Nations be wiped off the map.

Amos take a good look at the picture of the "hanged" woman in Iran. Please note the means used to hang her - a mobile crane. Normally when sentenced to die on a gallows the neck is broken and death is instantaneous. Death by hanging as performed in Iran is slow strangulation as the person sentenced is hoisted, not pleasant.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Apr 07 - 04:12 PM

image of crane hangings Iran

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Apr 07 - 04:24 PM

Image and report about hanging gay teenagers Iran

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: bobad
Date: 18 Apr 07 - 07:20 PM

Bush has tipped his hand (according to the Huffington Post)


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-a-palermo/michael-gordon-outdoes-ju_b_41097.html

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 18 Apr 07 - 11:51 PM

Good link, bobad.

Yes, the propaganda is getting thick. The U.S. wants to blame Iran for the high-powered weapons being used by the insurgency when in fact the al qaeda linked Sunnis are more than capable of making their own rockets and other weapons.

"Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis had been employed in Saddam's huge arms industry, making artillery shells, rifles, land mines, mortars and missiles. The military factories have been abandoned or looted but some of the workers are thought to have joined the insurgency or offered their expertise in the fight against U.S. forces and their Iraqi allies."

In addition, they have Russian made arms and perhaps some from Syria and Iran. I wouldn't doubt that some Iranian weapons are making it across the border to Iraq but the U.S. has no proof that it is sanctioned by the Iranian govt. Besides that, Syria and Iran do have a stake in what happens in Iran so whats the surprise?

But the propaganda machine continues to churn and the public will soon believe that it is necessary for an invasion of Iran because they are supplying weapons that kill American soldiers in Iraq. In fact, most of the weapons are being produced by Iraqis in Iraq, many with materials that were looted shortly after the U.S. invaded Iraq by Sunnis loyal to Saddam who are being backed by al Qaeda, not Iran!

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 19 Apr 07 - 12:05 AM

Sorry. I forgot the link for my quote.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6564035,00.html

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 19 Apr 07 - 12:24 AM

Iran. They would be crazy not to develop nuclear weapons. They see this as their only ace in the hole. Israel would love to nuke 'em and could do it.

Many here are laboring under the misapprehension that Bush is in possesion of his faculties. He might try to nuke Iran.

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Apr 07 - 03:40 AM

Couple of questions in response to some very bold assertions made by Frank Hamilton:

- "Israel would love to nuke 'em and could do it."

Have you any substantive evidence whatsoever for making that statement Frank. Or is it just a wild, trendy-leftist, right-on thing to spout by way of an attempt to excuse the inexcusable conduct of the regime currently in power in Iran?

- "Bush" .... "might try to nuke Iran."

Again Frank anything at all to back this up? To date, as far as I am aware the USA has not threatened Iran in any way shape or form. The United Nations has, however, unanimously agreed to impose certain sanctions on the recommendation of the IAEA, as have members of the EU.

The belief that the developement and acquisition of nuclear weapons would be of some benefit to Iran is erroneous, far from bolstering that country's security, the possession of such weapons dramatically reduces it.

One misconception that most seem to be labouring under is the belief that the big, bad US would have to "invade" Iran, it doesn't and I don't believe for a second that it would unless of course Iran attacked Iraq first.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Apr 07 - 04:29 AM

Perhaps we should add Pakistan to the list.
The government has never fully controlled the tribal areas and now seems to be giving up parts of the main cities to the fundamentalists.
There is a real prospect of Taleban/Al Quieda seizing power.
Pakistan has nuclear weapons.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 23 Apr 07 - 11:14 AM

Iran in the eye of storm (a long research paper)

The author sees a USA-Iran war as very likely though he hopes he is wrong.

The Iran crisis is indeed a significant symptom of a unilateral world order on the verge of collapse. To prevent a catastrophic conflagration, an unbiased engagement by the European Union is indispensable in order to decrease the regional security dilemma by ultimately establishing a nuclear-free Near and Middle East zone. Europe should assume responsibility vis-à-vis her neighboring region, for surrendering to New Order fantasies à l’Américaine will heavily harm her own interests.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Amos
Date: 23 Apr 07 - 12:15 PM

"The editors at The New York Times could save money by cutting out Michael Gordon as the middleman, and instead just reprint Bush Administration press releases on their front page. In this piece of "journalism," Gordon makes Judith Miller look like I.F. Stone.

Nevertheless, Gordon's article is extremely important because in it Bush has tipped his hand. He is going to attack Iran. And the editors of The New York Times have tipped their hand too. They are on board.

The question is: Will the Congress and the American people, after what has transpired in Iraq, fall for yet another media-hyped call for war?"

The sentiment of the people of Iran in general is positively pro-Western. It would be a serious error to force this nation into a war stance. THey aren't well organized enough to stand up in a war, but the point is that if things were handled correctly, Iran could become a major Western ally. The right-wing extremism of the few hard-core ayatollah types does not reflect the politics or sentiment of most people in Iran. When crack-downs occasionally occur trying to enforce stricter observance of various religious behaviours on people, the broad response is to go along until it dies out and then resume the more Western style. At least this seems to be the case in the large middle class of Tehran.

US interests would be MUCH better served in securing the alliance of this middle class and helping it salvage the poorly managed economy .

A

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Apr 07 - 06:35 PM

Oh, I see Amos, the 12 Old-Gits who run the Islamic Fundamentalist Republic of Iran are, how did you put it, right-wing extremist, hard-core ayatollah types. In an Islamic Fundamentalist Regime exactly where does extreme right or left enter the equation Amos?

But there is one thing about which you are perfectly correct Amos, the 12 Old-Gits who run Iran have never made any attempt or pretence of reflecting the politics or sentiment of most people in Iran. Its the other way about, the 12 Old-Gits just tell the people of Iran what their politics and their sentiments are going to be.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Amos
Date: 23 Apr 07 - 06:40 PM

My impressions are from an American Iranian who has just returned from a visit home.

Where are yours from?

In any case, it would be a serious error to force Iran into war, when they could be made into allies.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Nickhere
Date: 23 Apr 07 - 07:07 PM

ABC News Exclusive: The Secret War Against Iran
>
> ABC News - April 03, 2007 5:25 PM
>
> Brian Ross and Christopher Isham Report:
>
> > xclus.html>
>
> A Pakistani tribal militant group responsible for a
> series of deadly guerrilla raids inside Iran has been
> secretly encouraged and advised by American officials
> since 2005, U.S. and Pakistani intelligence sources
> tell ABC News.
>
> The group, called Jundullah, is made up of members of
> the Baluchi tribe and operates out of the Baluchistan
> province in Pakistan, just across the border from Iran.
>
> It has taken responsibility for the deaths and
> kidnappings of more than a dozen Iranian soldiers and
> officials.
>
> U.S. officials say the U.S. relationship with Jundullah
> is arranged so that the U.S. provides no funding to the
> group, which would require an official presidential
> order or "finding" as well as congressional oversight.
>
> Tribal sources tell ABC News that money for Jundullah
> is funneled to its youthful leader, Abd el Malik Regi,
> through Iranian exiles who have connections with
> European and Gulf states.
>
> Jundullah has produced its own videos showing Iranian
> soldiers and border guards it says it has captured and
> brought back to Pakistan.
>
> The leader, Regi, claims to have personally executed
> some of the Iranians.
>
> "He used to fight with the Taliban. He's part drug
> smuggler, part Taliban, part Sunni activist," said
> Alexis Debat, a senior fellow on counterterrorism at
> the Nixon Center and an ABC News consultant who
> recently met with Pakistani officials and tribal
> members.
>
> "Regi is essentially commanding a force of several
> hundred guerrilla fighters that stage attacks across
> the border into Iran on Iranian military officers,
> Iranian intelligence officers, kidnapping them,
> executing them on camera," Debat said.
>
> Most recently, Jundullah took credit for an attack in
> February that killed at least 11 members of the Iranian
> Revolutionary Guard riding on a bus in the Iranian city
> of Zahedan.
>
> Last month, Iranian state television broadcast what it
> said were confessions by those responsible for the bus
> attack.
>
> They reportedly admitted to being members of Jundullah
> and said they had been trained for the mission at a
> secret location in Pakistan.
>
> The Iranian TV broadcast is interspersed with the logo
> of the CIA, which the broadcast blamed for the plot.
>
> A CIA spokesperson said "the account of alleged CIA
> action is false" and reiterated that the U.S. provides
> no funding of the Jundullah group.
>
> Pakistani government sources say the secret campaign
> against Iran by Jundullah was on the agenda when Vice
> President Dick Cheney met with Pakistani President
> Pervez Musharraf in February.
>
> A senior U.S. government official said groups such as
> Jundullah have been helpful in tracking al Qaeda
> figures and that it was appropriate for the U.S. to
> deal with such groups in that context.
>
> Some former CIA officers say the arrangement is
> reminiscent of how the U.S. government used proxy
> armies, funded by other countries including Saudi
> Arabia, to destabilize the government of Nicaragua in
> the 1980s.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Apr 07 - 12:23 AM

When was it the USA was supposed to have launched their attack on Iran's nuclear sites according to extremely reliable Russian sources again? Little Hawk should know he put so much faith into the report.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Dickey
Date: 24 Apr 07 - 12:42 AM

The fate of children in Iran

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Amos
Date: 24 Apr 07 - 01:23 AM

Dickey:

ANother one of your madcap generalizations, eh, mad dog?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 24 Apr 07 - 01:54 AM

Dickey - What is it you are trying to say?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Dickey
Date: 24 Apr 07 - 10:34 AM

The fate of children in North Korea

Tyrannical dictatorships use starvation as a means of control and ethnic cleansing. In rural areas of North Korea, there is no food, clean water, medicine or fuel for heat.

Humanitarian relief experts report that more than 4 million North Koreans, including children, have died of starvation since 1995, despite the fact that North Korea receives more food aid than any other nation in the world.

Eye witnesses report that President Kim Jong II stockpiles food for the military. Others report that the president also sells donated food for cash.

http://www.facesofchildren.net/wherearegodschildren.html

---

N. Korean defector says disabled newborns are killed
http://civilliberty.about.com/b/a/255118.htm

SEOUL (Reuters) - North Korea has no people with physical disabilities because they are killed almost as soon as they are born, a physician who defected from the communist state said on Wednesday.

Ri Kwang-chol, who fled to the South last year, told a forum of rights activists that the practice of killing newborns was widespread but denied he himself took part in it.

"There are no people with physical defects in North Korea," Ri told members of the New Right Union, which groups local activists and North Korean refugees.

He said babies born with physical disabilities were killed in infancy in hospitals or in homes and were quickly buried.

The practice is encouraged by the state, Ri said, as a way of purifying the masses and eliminating people who might be considered "different."


A North Korean female refugee in a state of extreme malnutrition says she lost all other family members due to starvation before fleeing to China.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 24 Apr 07 - 12:49 PM

Dickey -

If you are going to post pictures, we need a citation.

If you're going to show us pictures of children who are mistreated and/or neglected, you need to tell us why you are posting the pictures.

btw - What does that have to do with invading either Iran or Korea? You don't think that is why the U.S. goes to war, do you? Grab a brain. If that were the case, we'd be in Darfur and any number of other countries.

Your last post is completely off topic.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Dickey
Date: 25 Apr 07 - 12:34 AM

Dianavan:

I am showing the state of affairs, mainly huiman rights in the two countries so people can decide which one to attack next.

The source is Google images.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Amos
Date: 25 Apr 07 - 02:58 AM

Dickey:

SIngle instances do not substantiate generalized conditions.

Get smart.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 25 Apr 07 - 07:09 AM

Shia Muslims mark Ashura

What Dickey has linked to is a not uncommon religious practice found among Shia Muslims. As ugly as this practice looks to me it is not a good reason for an attack. BTW, if one reads the article one finds for instance this sentence: In Iran, the blood-letting is banned and many fatwas, or religious rulings, have been issued declaring the custom forbidden.

The general starvation in North Korea, however, is well documented and not a question of just single instances. It is stupid to attack this piece of information for fear it might be used as an excuse for an attack. The right thing to do is to question the potential use of the correct information as an excuse for an attack. But:

There will be no attack on North Korea, neither with nor without excuse. Regarding North Korea, the Bush government has made some good moves in the last two years that have been answered as it was hoped by the dictator. That case is closed.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Dickey
Date: 26 Apr 07 - 02:40 PM

A good critique Wolfgang but I can't help sharing these images I run across that illustrate what happens in other countrys. It is like being hit with a two by four between the eyes.

Take for instance this kid's TV animation produced in Iran to brainwash Palestinian children.

There are other examples here.

And even a search engine here.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Apr 07 - 08:33 PM

Good heavens Dickey, can't wait to hear dianavan's take on those as suitable viewing for children.

By the bye do you have any similar footage for Israeli children? Do you have any similar footage for children under declared Muslim threats of violence in Europe or in the USA?

These being shown on Arabic MSM, Yes?

What wonderful balanced and tolerant people they must be, yet not one word do they report about Muslim atrocities in Darfur, wonder why? No doubt there will be many on this forum who will rush to their defence.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 26 Apr 07 - 09:39 PM

Are you trying to say that because you don't agree with Iranian propaganda and Iranian religion we should invade them? Remember, the people of of Iran despised the Shah and actually wanted a theocracy. Also try to remember that we are not the police of the world. Last time I checked, nobody gave us the right to impose our cultural values by creating a war.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Apr 07 - 01:31 AM

Dianavan, put extremely bluntly, Iranian propoganda and Iranian religion are being blatantly used to incite racial hatred amongst the most impressionable and vulnerable people in their society. Exactly what chance do they have of EVER reaching a rational and reasoned outlook on problems in their region after having been fed this diet of hate-filled trash. Mind you it seems to be the norm for Muslim leaders in that part of the world to lie to their followers in order to create conflict for their own ends.

By the bye dianavan, exactly who has threatened to invade Iran, or anywhere else for that matter.

Why would the US ever have to invade Iran dianavan? Even in a conflict situation. Everything you claim that the US may wish to do could be achieved without a single US serviceman ever setting foot on Iranian soil.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 27 Apr 07 - 03:16 AM

"Exactly what chance do they have of EVER reaching a rational and reasoned outlook on problems in their region after having been fed this diet of hate-filled trash."

Probably about the same as children in the U.S. growing up on a diet of violent video games, internet porn, trash T.V. and rap. Cho is just the tip of the iceberg.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Apr 07 - 07:28 AM

Iran, EU 'closer' on nuclear talks
POSTED: 10:45 a.m. EDT, April 26, 2007

ANKARA, Turkey (AP) -- Iran's top nuclear negotiator said Thursday that talks with a senior EU official had brought the two men closer to "a united view" of how to break a deadlock over Tehran's defiance of a U.N. Security Council demand to freeze uranium enrichment.

The upbeat comments by Ali Larijani boosted expectations that he and Javier Solana, the European Union's top foreign policy official, had chipped away at differences over enrichment -- a potential pathway to nuclear arms -- in two straight days of talks.

"In some areas we are approaching a united view," Larijani told reporters after a breakfast meeting with Solana and Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul. "We are aiming to reach out for a common paradigm."

Solana spoke of a "good meeting," adding: "We cannot make miracles, but we tried to move ... the (nuclear) dossier forward.

"The fact that we are together again is itself a very important development," he said, alluding to the last time the two men met -- in September talks that collapsed over the enrichment issue.

Neither revealed details of their talks. But a government official based in a European capital said the two touched on possible new discussions of what constituted a suspension of enrichment and related activities.

A new definition of an enrichment freeze acceptable to both sides was "the key issue," said the official, who demanded anonymity in exchange for discussing the confidential information with The Associated Press.

In an interview with CNN-Turk television, Larijani said "new ideas" had emerged.

"I can't give exact details because these ideas need more time to be developed. But I can call them a very positive, concrete first step," he said. Larijani also said another meeting on the nuclear issue would be held in two weeks, but he did not specify the location.

There also was mention of a "double time out" -- a simultaneous freeze of such activities in exchange for a commitment not to impose new U.N. sanctions, said the official, who was briefed on the outcome of the meeting.

The "double time out" concept is supported by International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei and is part of a confidential document shared on Wednesday with the AP.

The one-page document, based on a Swiss initiative, proposes that during such a double-moratorium "Iran will not develop any further its enrichment activities," and the six powers "will not table any additional U.N. resolutions and sanctions."

Diplomats said that the document is opposed by the U.S., Britain and France but that parts of it could nonetheless serve as the basis of a later agreement that could lead to formal negotiations.

Solana was meeting with Larijani on behalf of the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany -- the countries at the forefront of international efforts to pressure Iran to make nuclear concessions.

Government officials outside Turkey had told the AP ahead of the meeting that the six powers Solana represented ultimately may be willing to allow Iran to keep some of its uranium enrichment program intact, instead of demanding it be completely dismantled.

That would be a major development: The U.S. in particular publicly continues to insist that Iran needs to mothball all enrichment and related activities.

Still, the Ankara meetings are only preliminary discussions meant to establish if there is enough common ground for further talks between the two men that could lead to the resumption of formal nuclear negotiations between the six powers and Iran.

Iran's defiance of a U.N. Security Council demands on enrichment has led to two sets of sanctions against the country.

Iran argues the sanctions are illegal, noting it has the right to enrich uranium to generate nuclear power under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

Iranian officials say nuclear power is the only purpose of their program, dismissing suspicions that they ultimately want weapons-grade uranium for the fissile core of nuclear warheads.

But the U.S. and others say past suspicious nuclear activities, including a program Iran kept secret for nearly two decades, set the country apart from others that have endorsed the treaty.

Negotiations broke down last year when the Iranian government refused to suspend enrichment in exchange for a package of economic and political inducements, including help in developing a peaceful nuclear program.

Solana was expected to brief Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice next week, when he attends an EU-U.S. summit in Washington, as well as the foreign ministers of the other five major powers. They, in turn were likely to set ground rules for the next meeting between the two.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Apr 07 - 07:53 AM

Signs of A Spring Thaw
Interest on Both Sides In U.S.-Iran Talks

By David Ignatius
Friday, April 27, 2007; Page A23

Sometimes big developments are hidden in plain sight, and that appears to be the case with Iran and the United States. The two countries have moved over the past year from mutual isolation to the edge of serious diplomatic discussions.

The Bush administration is aggressively signaling that it wants such a dialogue. But the Iranians, who seem convinced they have the upper hand, are being coy. They still seem unsure whether Iran's national interests are best served by a deepening confrontation with America or by a policy of engagement.

The decisions the Iranian leadership makes over the next several weeks about diplomatic strategy will shape Iran's future, as well as that of the Middle East. Given the stakes, it's likely that whatever decision they make will initially be hedged -- not quite engagement or not quite rejection. As in a commercial transaction in Tehran's covered bazaar, this negotiation won't be quick or direct.

But a process of bargaining is underway between Iran and America. That's what became clear this week, in two different diplomatic channels. And it marks a change from the isolation and intense suspicion that have prevailed for most of the 28 years since the Iranian revolution of 1979.

Iranian pragmatists who favor discussions with the United States say that the diplomatic ground is now well prepared for moving forward. One Iranian source cautions that there are factions in both Washington and Tehran that favor a continuation of the stalemate but that they are not a majority. "The majority in both capitals must make a decision to go for a solution," he says.

The first diplomatic channel involves the Iranian nuclear program. Javier Solana, the European Union's top diplomat, met yesterday and Wednesday in Ankara with Ali Larijani, Iran's national security adviser. Details of the conversation are fuzzy, but the crucial point is that they agreed to meet again in two weeks for what, in effect, will be a resumption of the "E.U.-3" talks on Iran's nuclear program.

Solana's message to Larijani was that Iran should sit down at the negotiating table before the current set of United Nations sanctions expires May 24 and the Security Council moves to consider a tougher third round of sanctions. Solana envisions a complicated minuet in which the Iranians would perhaps meet in mid-May with representatives of France, Britain and Germany -- maybe joined by Russian and Chinese diplomats. It's hoped that the meeting would produce a deal -- "suspension for suspension" is what the diplomats are calling it -- in which U.N. sanctions would be lifted in exchange for an Iranian pledge to stop enriching uranium during the course of negotiations. If Solana's diplomatic dance is successful, the United States would join the talks.

Nobody has yet floated a formula that would actually bridge the wide U.S.-Iranian differences over the nuclear issue, but then that's what diplomatic negotiations are all about. Iranian officials argue privately that Solana must be given enough latitude to find a solution that's acceptable to both sides. If the talks simply restate existing positions, cautions one Iranian source, they will fail.

To reassure the Iranians, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice took the unusual step of disavowing any U.S. plans for regime change. "It [regime change] was not the policy of the U.S. government. The policy was to have a change in regime behavior," she said in an interview Monday in the Financial Times.

A second diplomatic channel to Iran will open next week, when Rice travels to the Egyptian resort of Sharm el-Sheikh for a meeting with Iraq's neighbors, including Iran and Syria. Although Iran is expected to attend, Iranian officials caution that their foreign minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, may stay away unless the United States signals that it intends to release five Iranian officials seized in January in the northern Iraq city of Irbil.

Rice wants bilateral meetings with Iranian and Syrian representatives at the "neighbors" meeting. And State Department officials say they hope the meeting will be the start of regular discussions with Iran and Syria about how to stabilize Iraq. In that sense, the administration is fully ready to embrace the diplomatic recommendations of the Baker-Hamilton report.

The door is opening on the possibility of the first real U.S.-Iranian negotiations since 1979. Both sides have to decide they want them -- and ignore the powerful voices in each capital that argue for confrontation.

The writer co-hosts, with Newsweek's Fareed Zakaria, PostGlobal, an online discussion of international issues athttp://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal. His e-mail address [e-mail].

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Apr 07 - 12:39 PM

Bush to North Korea: Patience 'not unlimited'
POSTED: 12:21 p.m. EDT, April 27, 2007

Story Highlights• Bush, Japanese prime minister threaten new sanctions against N. Korea
• Bush: Pyongyang faces "price to pay" if promises not kept
• Japan's Shinzo Abe threatens "tougher response"
• Abe making first visit to U.S. as Japan's prime minister

CAMP DAVID, Maryland (AP) -- President Bush and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe demanded on Friday that North Korea live up to its promises and abandon its nuclear weapons program.

The two leaders threatened more sanctions against Pyongyang.

"There's a price to pay," Bush said, standing alongside Abe at the presidential retreat in the Maryland mountains. (Watch why Japan has special concerns about North Korea )

"Our partners in the six-party talks are patient, but our patience is not unlimited," Bush said, referring to disarmament negotiations between the United States, Japan, China, Russia, South Korea and North Korea

For his part, Abe said, "We completely see eye to eye on this matter. They need to respond properly on these issues. Otherwise we will have to take a tougher response on our side."

North Korea missed a deadline to shut down its nuclear reactor under an agreement reached in February.

Bush's words appeared to be an attempt to persuade Abe that the United States is not softening its stance on North Korea.

Japan is already withholding economic and food aid to the reclusive communist regime.

Abe said that sanctions "will worsen" if North Korea continues to defy the international community.

On another subject, Abe apologized for the Japanese military's actions in forcing women to work in military brothels during World War II. He said he wanted to "express my apologies that they were placed in that circumstance."

Abe created a controversy recently by suggesting their was no evidence Japan's Imperial Army had directly coerced the so-called "comfort women" to work in brothels.

In his Camp David remarks, Abe said he had apologized for those remarks in his meetings with members of Congress on Thursday, and again with Bush on Friday.

Bush said the comfort women situation was "a regrettable chapter in the history of the world. And I accept the prime minister's apology."

Abe expressed "deep-hearted sympathies" for the comfort women, saying they had been placed "in extreme hardship."

At the same time, Abe said that "human rights were violated in many parts of the world" at the time. "So we have to make the 21st century a century in which no human rights are violated," he said. He pledged to make "a significant contribution to this end."

On the North Korea issue, Bush said, "We expect North Korea to meet all its commitments under the February 13th agreement. And we will continue working closely with our partners."

A U.S. decision to allow the return of $25 million in disputed North Korean money in an attempt to move the disarmament process forward has been criticized in Japan as a sign of softness.

Bush addressed this issue. "There's a financial arrangement that we're now trying to clarify for the North Koreans, so that that will enable them to have no excuse for moving forward. And that's where we are right now," he said.

"I think it's wise to show the North Korean leader as well that there's a better way forward. I wouldn't call that soft," said Bush.

On another nuclear weapons issue, Bush also said that "we speak with one voice to the regime in Iran. Our nations have fully implemented the sanctions imposed by the U.N. Security Council in response to Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons.

"Further defiance by Iran will only lead to additional sanctions and to further isolation from the international community," Bush said.