BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Dickey
Date: 27 Apr 07 - 04:40 PM

Dianavan: The animations are not "Iranian propaganda and Iranian religion" It is brainwashing children, creating terrorisim and promoting war instead of peace.

Is that OK with you or do you think it should be opposed?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 27 Apr 07 - 04:46 PM

I think it should be opposed by Iranians.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Dickey
Date: 28 Apr 07 - 02:47 AM

By that logic, no one can oppose what goes on in the us except Americans.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 28 Apr 07 - 03:35 AM

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

Based on the statement above, I thought you were suggesting that we should attack Iran.

I am saying that we can oppose the policies of Iran but that if change is to occur, it must change from within and by the Iranian people. We have no business attacking them because we don't approve of their social system or their religion.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Dickey
Date: 28 Apr 07 - 12:09 PM

The title is Who's next? Iran or Korea. It was started in )4 so I assume it meant which country was next for a regime change.

Korea is promoting terrorisim by selling or threatening to sell nukes to terrorists.

Iran is promoting terrorisim by producing terrorist propaganda to be desiminated outside of Iran, training, equiping and supporting Hezbollah to execute and promote terrorisim outside of Iran and take over other soveriegn governments.

So you are saying leave them alone? Should the UN leave them alone and quit passing all those nasty resolutions?

I think economisc sanctions are the best way to deal with both but other UN "members" will not follow along.

I really don't understand why a country is not kicked out of the UN when it defies a UN resolution.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 28 Apr 07 - 05:53 PM

"I really don't understand why a country is not kicked out of the UN when it defies a UN resolution." - Dickey

Which country and which resolution? You'll have to be a little more specific. When you figure out what you're talking about, please include a source.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 29 Apr 07 - 03:20 AM

Yeah, sure, why not invade both Iran and Korea because they are immoral.

Trouble is, the U.S. seems to be on very friendly terms with the Kurds who were involved with the Armenian genocide and practice honour killings at the drop of the hat. They also support Afghanistan, who has seen a resurgence of traditional dog fights, which the Taliban forbade. I've also heard that in areas where the Taliban are gone, the women are very reluctant to take off their veils.

I don't think there are very many countries who are squeaky clean and the U.S. is certainly not morally superior - nor are Jews or Christians or Muslims. Seems to me that all of 'the people of the book' are going through some kind of ritual cleansing.

I wonder if after Armegeddon, only Hindus and Buddhists will remain.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 May 07 - 02:49 PM

Iran won't budget at nuke meeting By GEORGE JAHN, Associated Press Writer
Fri May 4, 7:24 AM ET



VIENNA, Austria - A standoff pitting       Iran against most others delegations at a 130-nation nuclear conference deepened Friday, with organizers adjourning the third straight session in as many days without breaking a deadlock over the language of the meeting's agenda.

At issue is Tehran's refusal to accept a phrase calling for the "need for full compliance with" the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

That position has delayed adoption of the agenda since the conference opened Monday. Tehran argues the language could lead it to become a target at the meeting because of its refusal to heed       U.N. Security Council demands to cease uranium enrichment and other parts of its nuclear program that could be misused to make nuclear weapons.

In a move to placate Iran, conference chairman Yukiya Amano of Japan — who drew up the agenda — told the meeting his intention was to make clear in the text that "compliance with the treaty is compliance with all provisions of the treaty" — an allusion to commitments by nuclear weapons states to disarm.

Still, the fact that he immediately adjourned the session until late afternoon reflected the continued need for back-room negotiations meant to find a common position that would allow the meeting to begin taking up substantive issues.

And Amano said he would not reopen the agenda text for revision, a move that would likely harden Iran's stance at the meeting.

Iran has said it is determined to expand its disputed nuclear program and further defy U.N. demands that it freeze all preparations for enrichment, a potential pathway to nuclear arms.

Before Friday's brief noon session, diplomats familiar with Iran's nuclear program said Tehran had recently set up more centrifuges at its underground uranium enrichment plant at Natanz, bringing the number of machines ready to spin uranium gas into enriched form to more than 1,600.

The diplomats spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to comment on internal conference matters to the media.

An       International Atomic Energy Agency document obtained last month said the Islamic regime was running more than 1,300 centrifuge machines to enrich uranium at its Natanz facility.

Its ultimate goal is to have 50,000 centrifuges. That would be enough to supply fuel for what Tehran says is a planned network of atomic reactors to generate electricity — or material for a full-scale nuclear weapons program.

The expansion of Iran's enrichment program is also linked to the main issue of contention at the Vienna conference.

The delays led to growing pessimism about how much the meeting could accomplish before its scheduled end on May 11. Several delegates suggested that if the dispute remains unresolved by early next week, the conference could be dissolved.

Rebecca E. Johnson, of the Acronym Institute for Disarmament Diplomacy in London, said the standoff evoked memories of the 2005 Nonproliferation Treaty review conference which failed to make substantive progress because of similar bickering over procedural issues.

"The only people who will take heart from a disaster here will be those who seek to weaken the nonproliferation regime, either by wanting to get the next generation of nuclear weapons or ... who want to develop their own nuclear programs," she said in an indirect swipe both at the atomic arms states and Iran.

Iran maintains that its nuclear activities — including its enrichment program — comply with the treaty. However, its objections to the agenda language suggest it may be worried that emphasis on compliance with the treaty could be used against it in discussions at the conference.

Comments by Iranian chief delegate Ali Ashgar Soltanieh outside the conference appeared to support that view. Soltanieh told The Associated Press that his country was ready to drop its objections if the statement on compliance was expanded to specify that it also applied to disarmament by nations with nuclear weapons.

Several diplomats said Tehran had not formally submitted any proposed amendment. They suggested the Islamic republic was interested mostly in blocking the meeting out of concerns that it would be called to task for its defiance of U.N. demands that it freeze enrichment.

Those diplomats also spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to comment on conference matters.

The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty calls on nations to pledge not to pursue nuclear weapons in exchange for a commitment by five nuclear powers — the U.S., Russia, Britain, France and China — to move toward nuclear disarmament. India and Pakistan, known nuclear weapons states, remain outside the treaty, as does       Israel, which is considered to have such arms but has not acknowledged it.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 04 May 07 - 03:14 PM

Just out of curiosity; were India, Pakistan and Israel part of the 130 nations who were invited? If so, why so?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 May 07 - 07:45 AM

from the Washington Post:

Waiting on North Korea
The regime promised to take the first steps toward nuclear disarmament by April 14. It has not moved.

Tuesday, May 8, 2007; Page A24


ON FEB. 13, the North Korean government formally pledged to shut down in 60 days the nuclear reactor it has been using to produce plutonium for nuclear weapons, to accept the return of international inspectors to monitor the facility and to "discuss a list of all its nuclear programs" with the United States and the four other participants in the six-party talks. The agreement set up a concrete test of whether the regime of Kim Jong Il was prepared to give up its nuclear weapons program in exchange for economic aid and security guarantees.

Eighty-four days have passed since then -- and North Korea has fulfilled none of its pledges. In response, the Bush administration has remained largely silent, nursing the hope that Pyongyang will in the end comply. State Department officials say they still expect the Yongbyon reactor to be shut down, and we hope they're right. Still, it would be foolish for North Korea's negotiating partners not to take notice of how its behavior since Feb. 13 compares with the commitments it made.

Instead of shutting down its reactor or welcoming inspectors, North Korea has been focused entirely on extracting the maximum possible financial advantage from the United States. Alongside the Feb. 13 accord, the Bush administration said it would "resolve" the question of $25 million in North Korean funds that had been frozen in a Macau bank. The administration didn't say how it would resolve the matter; at the time, officials said they might be willing to release that part of the frozen funds that was not directly linked to criminal activities such as drug trafficking and counterfeiting of U.S. currency.

North Korea first made clear that it would take no action until the banking issue was settled by the unfreezing of its accounts. The administration conceded that. Then Pyongyang demanded all of its money back, including that linked to criminal activity. Again, the administration gave in; on April 10, it made all $25 million available for withdrawal. But that, too, failed to resolve the issue: Now the North is insisting that it be able to transfer the money to bank accounts in South Korea, Italy or Russia -- and thereby formally break the taboo the U.S. Treasury had managed to create on its use of the international banking system. Guess what? The Bush administration is once again going along.

Administration officials say all this, along with the breaking of the deadline by (so far) 24 days, will be worth it if the reactor is shut down. That's true. But it should be remembered that the commitments on which Pyongyang is currently in default are the first and easiest in what is supposed to be a three-stage process. As Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice noted in February, only if Kim Jong Il complied with the second stage -- by disclosing and disabling all nuclear facilities -- would it be possible to conclude that he had made a "strategic choice" to give up nuclear weapons. State Department negotiator Christopher Hill said last week that he still believed that that could happen by the end of this year. Again, we hope he's right. But so far, the record is this: In 84 days, North Korea has done nothing but extract concessions from the United States.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 May 07 - 07:38 AM

from the Washington Post:

Wrong Move in Iran
Arresting an Iranian American scholar is no way to win the world's respect.
Friday, May 11, 2007; Page A18


IF IRAN wants the world's respect, as its president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, claims, its Intelligence Ministry should immediately free Iranian American scholar Haleh Esfandiari.

Ms. Esfandiari, 67, the respected director of the Middle East Program at the Smithsonian Institution's Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, traveled to Iran to visit her sick 93-year-old mother last year. On her way to the airport to return to Washington in December, she was robbed at knifepoint and stripped of her Iranian and American passports. Since then she has been interrogated for 50 hours, according to her husband. The Intelligence Ministry's purpose in interrogating her is unclear, because the answers to most of its questions are available online at the Wilson Center Web site, said the center's director, Lee H. Hamilton. Interrogators have tried to coerce her into false confessions about her activities and the activities of the Wilson Center, which they seem to believe is driving U.S. policy against Iran. Finally, on Tuesday, she was locked up in Tehran's Evin Prison. Officials turned her mother away when she tried to visit.

Ms. Esfandiari, who holds dual U.S. and Iranian citizenship, is one of three Americans who are being held as "soft hostages" in Iran. Among them is a journalist for Radio Farda who also was arrested while visiting her ailing mother. Human Rights Watch places the total number of political dissidents currently imprisoned in Tehran under state security laws at around 50, and in the past week at least 16 others have been arrested around the country for various political activities.

Even within the context of these human rights abuses, Ms. Esfandiari's imprisonment is particularly poignant because she has been advocating dialogue and a restoration of diplomatic relations with Iran. Some Iranian Americans accuse her of being too "soft" on Tehran. Her arrest only tends to strengthen those who argue that the Ahmadinejad regime is too cruel and irrational to make an attempt at dialogue worthwhile.

Some scholars believe Ms. Esfandiari may be a pawn in the infighting in the Iranian government, too, with Mr. Ahmadinejad trying to create "enemies" to strengthen his position. But Ms. Esfandiari is no enemy of Iran, and her efforts to promote understanding are not causing the world to lose respect for Iran. Her imprisonment is.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 May 07 - 01:59 PM

Iran, North Korea seek to boost cooperation
Fri May 11, 10:50 AM ET

TEHRAN (Reuters) -       Iran and       North Korea have agreed to step up bilateral contacts, an Iranian news agency said on Friday, signaling closer ties between two countries which were part of U.S.       President George W. Bush's "axis of evil."

Iran's Foreign Minister Manoucher Mottaki signed the agreement with visiting North Korean Vice Foreign Minister Kim Yong-il on Thursday evening, the student news agency ISNA said.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's government "is interested in expanding ties with North Korea in the political, economical and cultural fields," Mottaki was quoted as saying.

"Therefore it is necessary to remove some barriers to provide and recognize new fields of cooperation," he said, suggesting North Korea's debt to Iran was one such barrier without giving details.

Under Thursday' accord, the foreign ministries of the two countries would every year send delegations to each other to "exchange ideas" over different international issues.

Bush branded the two countries as well as       Iraq as part of an "axis of evil" after he took office in 2001.

Since then, Iran has defied Western pressure to suspend its nuclear program, which the West fears is aimed at making atom bombs, a charge Tehran denies.

North Korea drew international condemnation when it conducted its first nuclear test in October, but agreed in February this year to shut its nuclear facilities in return for energy aid.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Dickey
Date: 12 May 07 - 12:11 AM

Iran Acknowledges Dealings With North Korea
Associated Press
May 11, 2007 10:22 p.m.

TEHRAN, Iran -- Iran's foreign minister said North Korea's debts stand in the way of improving ties between the two countries -- both U.S. foes under international pressure over their nuclear programs.

It was the first time an official of either country referred to their dealings, which go back to at least the 1980s but are not publicly known. The extent of North Korea's debts to Iran remains unknown.

North Korea's "debts to Tehran are among the obstacles in the way of cooperation," the official IRNA news agency quoted Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki as saying Friday. "The two countries can find a formula to remove this obstacle."

Mr. Mottaki met late Thursday with North Korean acting Foreign Minister Kim Yong Il. He added that Iran was still interested in improving ties with North Korea "in the fields of politics, economics and culture" with North Korea.

Mr. Kim said his country was ready to cooperate with Iran "in various economic fields" and support the country on the international level...



'

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

link for above http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117892742538900603.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Dickey
Date: 14 May 07 - 09:39 AM

Text of al-Zarqawi Safe-House Document Jun 15 2006

"... The question remains, how to draw the Americans into fighting a war against Iran? It is not known whether American is serious in its animosity towards Iraq, because of the big support Iran is offering to America in its war in Afghanistan and in Iraq. Hence, it is necessary first to exaggerate the Iranian danger and to convince America and the west in general, of the real danger coming from Iran, and this would be done by the following:

1. By disseminating threatening messages against American interests and the American people and attribute them to a Shi'a Iranian side.

2. By executing operations of kidnapping hostages and implicating the Shi'a Iranian side.

3. By advertising that Iran has chemical and nuclear weapons and is threatening the west with these weapons.

4. By executing exploding operations in the west and accusing Iran by planting Iranian Shi'a fingerprints and evidence.

5. By declaring the existence of a relationship between Iran and terrorist groups (as termed by the Americans).

6. By disseminating bogus messages about confessions showing that Iran is in possession of weapons of mass destruction or that there are attempts by the Iranian intelligence to undertake terrorist operations in America and the west and against western interests.

Let us hope for success and for God's help.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8I8LJBG0&show_article=1

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 14 May 07 - 11:44 AM

Yes, that information is about a year old.

It is, however, exactly why I believe that the Iranian threat is exagerrated and why I believe the U.S. and coalition forces should focus their efforts on Sunni insurgents rather than the Shia. Having said that, I also think that if the U.S. would go home, the Shitte militia, with the help of Iran, could easily defeat the Sunni/alQaeda insurgency. Iran is in a far better position to help Iraq than the U.S.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Dickey
Date: 14 May 07 - 09:42 PM

And after the Sunnis have been defeated????????????

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Dickey
Date: 15 May 07 - 09:59 AM

A. The middle east settles down and there will be peace.

B. Iran expands its Islamic totalitarian state to include Iraq, uses its power of oil exports to expand it's power over it's oil dependant enemies and Hezbollah gains a stronger foothold in the middle east causing more bloodshed an terrorisim.

C. ??????????????

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 May 07 - 12:46 PM

North Korea: Funds dispute nearly solved
By BURT HERMAN, Associated Press Writer
2 hours, 37 minutes ago


SEOUL, South Korea -       North Korea said Tuesday that steps were being taken to resolve a financial dispute that has blocked international efforts to halt its production of nuclear weapons in an indication of possible progress after weeks of delay.

North Korea has refused to start implementing a February agreement to shut down its nuclear reactor — missing a deadline that passed a month ago — until it receives funds from a bank in the Chinese territory of Macau that had been frozen after the bank was blacklisted by the United States in 2005.

North Korea's Foreign Ministry said it wanted to be able to "freely transfer funds."

"For this, works are under way so that funds at Macau's Banco Delta Asia can be transferred to our bank accounts at a third country," the ministry said in a statement carried by the official Korean Central News Agency.

The transfer has been held up because other banks have been reluctant to touch the $25 million in accounts that were freed with the blessing of the United States.

Washington has said the money was tied to alleged money laundering and counterfeiting by North Korea. Authorities say North Korea could withdraw the sum in cash, but it apparently wants to retrieve it through a bank wire transfer to prove the funds are now clean.

North Korea made the release of the money its main condition for halting its nuclear program, boycotting international arms negotiations for more than a year during which it conducted a weapons test in October.

On Tuesday, North Korea rebutted allegations it said were made in U.S. media that it had been using the funds dispute as a delaying tactic, and it repeated its commitment to the disarmament deal.

"Once the fund transfer is realized we are willing to immediately take steps to shut down our nuclear facility as agreed," the ministry said, adding it would invite U.N. nuclear inspectors and discuss the matter with the U.S.

"Once the Feb. 13 agreement gets implemented, our commitment will be clearly shown through our actions," the ministry said.

Earlier Tuesday, the U.S. ambassador to       South Korea called on the North to act on its pledge.

"It's time for North Korea to live up to its commitments," Alexander Vershbow told a security forum in Seoul. "The North has a lot to gain by ending its nuclear programs and getting rid of nuclear weapons."

Rewards include "economic assistance, normalized relations with the United States and a permanent peace regime for the Korean peninsula. ... In short, a fundamental transformation of the (North's) relations with the rest of the world and an end to its pariah status," he said.

The February deal calls for closing the reactor and disabling all of North Korea's nuclear facilities. Vershbow said Washington believes the action can be done in a "few months" and it hopes to achieve a complete denuclearization of North Korea before       President Bush leaves office in January 2009.

___

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Lepus Rex
Date: 15 May 07 - 01:08 PM

Yeah, Dickey. Becuase there's nothing Persian-controlled Iran would love more than to absorb twenty-seven and a half million Arabs and Kurds by annexing Iraq, turning the slight Persian majority of Iran into a plurality. And I'm sure they'd also be thrilled that nine million or so of those Arabs and Kurds were Sunni Muslims, as well. Fucking thrilled, I tell ya.

Keep the brilliant analysis coming, dude. If Condoleeza sees this, you may have a future in the State Department.

---Lepus Rex

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Dickey
Date: 15 May 07 - 03:36 PM

It was multiple choice with a fill in for none of the above.
It is the perfect opportunity for the clairvoiyants and Itoldjasos here to make their predictions.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 15 May 07 - 05:12 PM

Thanks, Lepus, you said it much better than I.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Dickey
Date: 15 May 07 - 06:25 PM

Howdy Doody could say it much better.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Lepus Rex
Date: 15 May 07 - 08:31 PM

And, Dickey? So you expressed your thoughts on the matter in the form of a multiple choice question. Choice number one was clearly a sarcastic crack at dianavan's position. And, based on your strongly anti-Muslim, anti-Arab, anti-Iranian posting history, clearly not your position. The only other option your brain could conjure up, choice number two, was the insanely alarmist wet-dream of an angry, impotent old white dude. Which would be you, no? And so, because what you wrote and what you thought was not just stupid, but bat-shit retarded, I corrected you.

And you could have taken my criticism, admitted that you're wrong and maybe, well, "less gifted," we'll call it, and moved on. Maybe done a little research, tried to improve yourself, somehow. But no. Dickey is smart, the world is dumb, nyah nyah nyah. Fine, I get it. You've got some weird hard-on for dead Muslims, and you're right to feel that way, damn it! So it's not racist that you do very little here other than try and drum up anti-Muslim feelings, usually with (à la beardebruce) damning, damning copy-pastes of the latest Muslim (always Muslim) atrocities. Or when you attempt to disguise your activities and deflect criticism by saying that's just you being a swell guy, spreading information to help people make up their minds. Bullshit. That's is the typical response of a bigot exposed. "I'm not a racist because I say 'I hates niggers because they want our white wimmin.' I'm just a good ol' boy, telling it like it is," etc. Half-closeted bigots like you are, unfortunately, fairly common here, and everywhere. Big deal. I'm used to it.

What really disturbs me about you was something you did earlier in this thread, for which you were taken to task by Wolfgang: You misrepresented an image of an infant being smeared with blood from a knife at a Shi'a Ashura ceremony as "The fate of children in Iran." (emphasis mine) By using the word "fate," you implied the worst, and I'd say crossed the line from tasteless fear-mongering into the realm of good old fashioned blood libel. That makes you a bad person, Dickie. That makes me not like you. And that's why, from time to time, I'll try and stop by and humiliate you when you say something crazy like "Iran expands its Islamic totalitarian state to include Iraq, uses its power of oil exports to expand it's power over it's oil dependant enemies and Hezbollah gains a stronger foothold in the middle east causing more bloodshed an terrorisim." So stop pretending you're capable of having an opinion of your own, and just go back to copy-pasting your bullshit articles, beardedbruce Jr. Then you can just whine and point your finger at the reporters when I say you're full of shit.

---Lepus Rex

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Dickey
Date: 15 May 07 - 11:30 PM

So what is your answer Lepus?

You do have an answer and not just a personal attack on someone you disagree with don't you?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Lepus Rex
Date: 16 May 07 - 12:07 AM

Uh, no, Dickey. I have no answer to your question. Perhaps if I felt that the "Sunnis" ought to be "defeated," I might feel the urge to actually give a fuck about your question. But, alas, no.

But, yes, I do disagree with your racism. And, yes, you're right: that is why I attacked you. Bravo! You got it. See? You're learning already!

---Lepus Rex

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Dickey
Date: 16 May 07 - 11:42 PM

Dear Rex:

It was Dianavan who said "if the U.S. would go home, the Shitte militia, with the help of Iran, could easily defeat the Sunni/alQaeda insurgency"

I asked what would happen after the Sunnis were defeated. Dianavan had nothing to say so I posed it as a multiple choice opended question.

Apparently you cannot answer the question but attack the asker of the question as being racist.

I don't think either should be defeated but brought together. al Quaeda is causing the Sunnis to fight the Shia and Iran is causing the Shia to fight the Sunnis.

Hopefully they will realize the it is not doing either of them any good and who is really causing the problems. It is said that an insurgency lasts 9 or 10 years and they are usually defeated.

I do consider Iran an Islamic totalitarian state based on human rights issues alone which I have illustrated whith photos.

Would you like to see Iraq under Iranian rule?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 17 May 07 - 01:30 AM

"Would you like to see Iraq under Iranian rule?"

What makes you think Iran wants to rule Iraq? Iraq has its own Shiite majority and while they could use the support of Iran, its unlikely that Iraq or Iran are considering unification.

No, I would not like to see Iraq under U.S. rule. They have absolutely no understanding of the Iraqi cultural composition or traditions.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 May 07 - 11:00 AM

dianavan,


What makes you think the US wants to rule Iraq? The US has its own minority problems, its unlikely that Iraq or the US are considering unification.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST
Date: 17 May 07 - 04:53 PM

True enough.

The U.S., however, does rule Iraq by occupation. Iran does not.

The U.S. has made very little effort to protect Iraqi civilians or to support the Shiite dominated government. Bush continues to ally himself with the Sunnis thus fomenting civil war. If Iran supported the Iraqi govt., there would be no support for the Sunnis and they would have to abide by the wishes of the democratically elected majority.

This may not be what we in the west want but it is what the majority of Iraqis want.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 17 May 07 - 05:25 PM

Der Middle-East today und Tomorrow, Der Vorld!   Ach Tung!

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,Fox Viewer
Date: 17 May 07 - 07:00 PM

John Bolton said today or yesterday America should attack Iran as quickly as possible before they get any closer to a bomb. Just FYI.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: pirandello
Date: 17 May 07 - 07:24 PM

Firstly there is no possibility of anything remotely resembling a 'victory' for the laughably named 'Coalition of the Willing', of whom there are precious few left.
Whatever happens in the future, and whatever the wishes of a future Iraqi government, America will demand a presence in Iraq to guard the precious, bloody oil which was the motivation for this entire adventurist fiasco in the first place.

Secondly, America needs to tread very, very carefully when considering an attack on Iran; it's unlikely that Vladimir Putin would take kindly to GI's on his borders.

Thirdly, America needs to watch out for China in it's dealings with N. Korea; these are the big guys and are not to be fucked with.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Lepus Rex
Date: 17 May 07 - 10:35 PM

Oh, Dick. You were making such progress. I didn't call you a racist because of your moronic multiple-choice question. That's not racist, just... stupid. And choice number two in that "quiz" is what you think would happen if the Iraqi Shi'a "defeated" the Iraqi Sunni (whatever the fuck that would mean). It's totally in line with your statements in this and other threads. And it's still absolute bullshit. And yet you continue to blather on about "Iraq under Iranian rule." Even after it's been explained to you at length by several people why this will never happen... Do you really still not get it?

Now, you're a racist because you hate Muslims. Yanno, judging by your posting history. I mentioned it because, well, no-one else seemed to have noticed, or cared. Why are you a racist? As I've already mentioned, a large number of your posts are devoted to copy-pasting articles about Muslim "atrocities." Not Christian atrocites, not Hindu, not Rastafarian. Muslim. Only. You also devote a large number of your posts to documenting instances of Muslims supposedly "forcing" westerners to adapt to Islamic practices. Muslims. Only. And then there's that whole blood libel deal from last month. That's what sets you apart from the likes of beardedbruce. That revealed you to be absolute slime, dude. Even when corrected by Wolfgang, you defended your post as "sharing these images I run across that illustrate what happens in other countrys.(sic)" Oh, what "countrys" would those be? Lutheran? Catholic? No? Just Muslim? Huh, weird.

And then you defend your blood libel again last night, stating that the Ashura photo was how you illustrated that Iran is "an Islamic totalitarian state based on human rights issues alone." Although, if you weren't so lazy/stupid, you'd spend the big three minutes it would take to find out that bloodletting on Ashura is banned in Iran. Not that you give a fuck what the truth is.

---Lepus Rex

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Dickey
Date: 18 May 07 - 09:22 AM

Rex:

Are you defending human rights abuses it Iran?

Thursday, 5 April, 2001, 15:50 GMT 16:50 UK
Iran observes day of mourning

Shi'a Muslims mourn the death of Imam Hussein
Thousands of Iranians have taken part in the religious ceremony of Ashura which commemorates the death of the Imam Hussein at the battle of Kerbala in 680AD, the event which consecrated the rift between the Shi'a minority and the Sunni Muslim majority..."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1260131.stm

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 18 May 07 - 12:49 PM

Dickey is not only a racist, he deliberately spreads misinformation.

The blood letting ritual of Ashura is outlawed by the Supreme Ruler. Iranians continue, however, continue to ritualize the event by giving blood to the red cross and performing passion plays. Some may even flagellate themselves. This practice is not restricted to Muslims. Take a look at how some Christians celebrate at Easter.

http://www.ansar.org/images/saleeb.jpg

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Lepus Rex
Date: 18 May 07 - 01:24 PM

And how, exactly, are Iranian men beating themselves with their hands or with chains evidence of "human rights abuses it Iran"? As I said, such displays are officially banned by a fatwa issued by Ayatollah Ali Khamene'i, one of those eeeeevil clerics who rule Iran. Yanno, the main dude, with the beard, and the turban. Look it the fuck, you blockhead.

And still no apologies for the blood libel thing? Huh.

---Lepus Rex

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Lepus Rex
Date: 18 May 07 - 01:32 PM

Look it the fuck up, you blockhead, even.

---Lepus Rex

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Dickey
Date: 18 May 07 - 11:16 PM

In the capital Tehran large processions of men dressed in black beat themselves with bare hands or iron chains in rhythm in a show of sorrow, while women, who do not take part in self-flagellation in public, wept as they watched the procession.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Dickey
Date: 19 May 07 - 12:17 AM

Legalized Whore Houses in Iran Termed "Chastity Houses"

The Iranian government recently passed legislation which created legal whore-houses, brothels which would be officially liscensed under law as "Chastity Houses." Such a name is of course the epitome of Orwellian terminology, and the irony of the name should not be lost to anyone.
.
The Iranian clerics argued that the only way to solve the problem of prostitution is to bring it under state control. In recent weeks, several prominent conservative clerics have proposed that prostitutes be placed in government-run shelters for destitute women to be called "Chastity Houses," where male customers could briefly "marry" them under the Shia belief of Mutah. These brothels would then be run by the Iranian religious clerics, who would ensure that the couples use contraceptives and protective measures. Proponents of the idea argue that it would "eradicate social corruption" by legitimizing sexual relations between the men and women. Under the plan, the couples would register for a temporary marriage under Iran's Shia law.
.
One cleric backing the plan, Ayatollah Mohammed Mousavi Bojnurdi, recently told a newspaper: "We face a real challenge with all these women on the street. Our society is in an emergency situation, so the formation of the Chastity Houses can be an immediate solution to the problem." He added that the plan "is both realistic and conforms to Sharia [Islamic] law."
.
The Cultural Council for Women, a women's rights group, argue back that such houses would be a "deceitful and thinly disguised" form of prostitution. Reuters recently quoted Shahrbanou Amani, a female parliamentarian, as calling the Chastity Houses "an insult and disrespectful to women." Particularly discomforting is that there are hundreds of thousands of prostitutes in Tehran alone, and many of them are girls who are poverty-striken and forced into the now legalized prostitution that is so rampant in Iran.

http://shiism.blogspot.com/2006/01/legalized-whore-houses-in-iran-termed.html

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Lepus Rex
Date: 19 May 07 - 01:36 AM

Christ, Dick, what are you, a fucking parakeet? Yes, I read the article on the Ashura procession. And? How is this evidence of "human rights abuses (in) Iran?"

And what's your point with the (incredibly old) story about a loophole for legalised prostitution in Iran? Ooh, sinister "news!" The Netherlands... Nevada... and Iran? A new... AXIS OF EVIL?! :o

---Lepus Rex

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST
Date: 19 May 07 - 04:29 AM

Dickey - How is self flagellation a human rights abuse?

How is legalized prostitution a human rights abuse?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 19 May 07 - 04:30 AM

Me again up above without a cookie.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 19 May 07 - 07:55 AM

On the subject of the so called "Axis of Evil", I'd be interested to know what people think it referred to.

Now during the second world war the Allies fought the Axis Powers that axis consisting of Germany - Italy - Japan.

The Axis of Evil that the current President of the United States of America was referring to was not a similarly conformed axis of Iraq - Iran - North Korea. The axis he was referring to was any rogue state that allied itself to any terrorist organisation with an international agenda, he named Iraq, Iran and North Korea as being the most likely culprits.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 19 May 07 - 06:04 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Dickey
Date: 20 May 07 - 02:41 AM

Dickey - How is self flagellation a human rights abuse?

How is legalized prostitution a human rights abuse?

I never said they were.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 20 May 07 - 03:47 AM

Dickey - Your post of 18 May 07 - 09:22 AM indicated that you were referring to the rites of self flagellation as human rights abuse. If thats not what you meant, please explain yourself.

A man is only as good as his word.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 May 07 - 02:23 PM

IAEA: Iran atomic work defies U.N.
POSTED: 10:50 a.m. EDT, May 23, 2007
Adjust font size:
VIENNA, Austria (Reuters) -- Iran has not only ignored a U.N. Security Council deadline to stop uranium enrichment activity but expanded it, according to a confidential International Atomic Energy Agency report obtained by Reuters on Wednesday.

Iran's defiance of another 60-day deadline set by the Council when it imposed a second set of sanctions on March 24 will expose Tehran to tougher penalties over its nuclear work, which the West fears is a front for assembling atom bombs.

"Iran has not suspended its enrichment-related activities. Iran has continued with the operation of their pilot fuel enrichment plant and with construction of their (planned industrial underground) enrichment plant," the U.N. nuclear watchdog said in its report.

"It has started feeding cascades with UF6 (uranium gas). Iran has also continued with its heavy water-related projects."

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/05/23/iran.nuclear.reut/index.html

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 May 07 - 02:27 PM

Sources: Iran imprisons 4th Iranian-American
POSTED: 1:37 p.m. EDT, May 23, 2007

Story Highlights• Another Iranian-American is arrested in Tehran
• Colleague says his pregnant wife also briefly was detained
• Ex-lawmaker on another detainee: "We are just trying every lever" to free scholar
• U.S., Iranian diplomats are set to meet next week in Baghdad

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Iran recently imprisoned a fourth person of dual Iranian and American citizenship, the man's family and colleagues told CNN on Wednesday


http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/05/23/iran.detentions/index.html

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 23 May 07 - 02:39 PM

700! A first for me!