BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?

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: 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: 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: 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 - 09:39 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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 - 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: 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: 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: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Apr 07 - 12:39 PM

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

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

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

The two leaders threatened more sanctions against Pyongyang.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 01:54 AM

Dickey - What is it you are trying to say?

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: Dickey
Date: 24 Apr 07 - 12:42 AM

The fate of children in Iran

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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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.