BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,Chief Chaos
Date: 05 May 08 - 09:23 PM

Just a coincidence but if you combine the first three letters of Korea with the last three of Iran you get the word Korran.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 May 08 - 09:18 AM

Washington Post:

( Note: IMO, this is critical of the Bush Administration- and I think it is far too kind. In this case, the Bush administration is wrong, and if (the Democratic -controlled) Congress does not step in and hold N. Korea to previous agreements it will become the Democrats problem.)


A Pushover for Pyongyang
By Danielle Pletka
From the American Enterprise Institute
Tuesday, May 6, 2008; 7:20 PM

The Bush administration is on the verge of signing an agreement with North Korea that, it argues, will result in the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula. In practice, however, the likely outcome will be the continuation of North Korea's nuclear weapons program and the proliferation of North Korean nuclear technology around the world.

The evolution of the administration's approach to North Korea has been an object lesson in muddled diplomacy, a "how-not-to" handle rogue states. Six years ago, the Bush administration cancelled the Clinton administration's Agreed Framework Between the United States of America and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, holding back a generous package of aid and light water nuclear reactors that had been promised to Pyongyang in exchange for giving up its plutonium-based nuclear weapons program. At the time, the Bush administration accused North Korea of cheating on the agreement by establishing a covert uranium enrichment program. Intelligence and the North Koreans themselves affirmed those charges.

Since the signing of the original Agreed Framework in 1994, North Korea has detonated a nuclear weapon, exported a nuclear reactor to Syria, aided Libya's incipient (and since dismantled) nuclear program by providing uranium hexafluoride (a precursor to the enrichment of uranium), aided the terrorist group Hezbollah with the construction of reinforced tunnels that emboldened the group and enhanced its capacity to wage war with Israel, provided sophisticated long range missiles to Iran, Syria, Yemen, Egypt and Libya, masterminded the counterfeiting of U.S. one hundred dollar bills, money laundered development aid from the United Nations, and likely starved to death hundreds of thousands of its own people.

This is an impressive record of international and domestic mayhem. Over the years, the American response has been to impose, either under law or executive order, a web of interlocking sanctions the collective impact of which is to preclude foreign assistance, exports, imports, trading preferences and all the other accoutrements of relations with normal countries.

In the case of most of the penalties imposed over the last decades, the president enjoys the right to waive sanctions under particular circumstances. However, in the case of at least one law, the so-called Glenn amendment to the Arms Export Control Act (which is triggered by a nuclear detonation), Congress must act to remove the sanctions imposed. The State Department is now pressing the House and Senate to do just that.

Indeed, far from seeking a narrow carve out of sanctions in order to facilitate verification of North Korean disarmament, the Bush administration appears intent on the rehabilitation of North Korea and a broad lifting of sanctions. American officials have committed to remove North Korea from the list of state sponsors of terrorism, remove restrictions tied to the Trading with the Enemy Act and waive other sanctions where the president is empowered to do so.

In other words, the Bush administration, having begun its term repudiating the concept of the Agreed Framework because, as Secretary Rice then said, Pyongyang cheated by "pursuing another path to a nuclear weapon, the so-called 'highly enriched uranium' path", and having then initiated the Six-Party talks with the intention, as President Bush suggested, of "North Korea completely, verifiably, and irreversibly dismantl[ing] its nuclear programs," will end its term by agreeing to an accord that essentially rewards Pyongyang for its misbehavior and falls short of the president's own demands.

Sequentially, we have demanded North Korea "dismantle" its nuclear program but have settled for "disabling." We have demanded a "complete declaration of all nuclear programs," but have accepted a deal that allows North Korea to avoid disclosing details of its program to enrich uranium and its assistance to Syria, Iran, Libya, Egypt or various subnational terror groups.

Three important questions remain: How did this happen? Will the United States Congress acquiesce in the administration's plan? And what impact can be expected?

Regarding the first question, it appears that certain officials have developed the North Korean equivalent of Stockholm syndrome. So eager are they to ink a deal, they are not only willing to jettison meaningful requirements, but have stooped to making arguments on behalf of the North Korean dictatorship to the U.S Congress and the American public. Why so eager? We can only speculate that the unpopular Iraq war, the failure of efforts to contain Iran, and the sputtering Israeli-Palestinian peace efforts have produced a drive within the hallways at Foggy Bottom to accomplish something for the history books.

Will Congress go along? Notwithstanding expressions of concern from experts and opinion leaders on both left and right, some in Congress appear poised to sign up to the new North Korea deal. The Senate Armed Services Committee recently sent a Defense Authorization measure to the full Senate that includes a provision waiving the Glenn amendment -- nominally for the purpose of providing aid to dismantle the North Korean reactor at Yongbyon. Practically, however, it is broad enough to permit vast amounts of assistance to the Kim Il Sung regime. The House Foreign Affairs Committee has also sent legislation to the full House. That provision, however, has significant restrictions on the easing of sanctions tied to North Korea's support to terrorist-supporting states and the accord's verification requirements.

Here we get to the heart of the matter: Is an accord with Pyongyang that manages to make some undetermined progress on disarming North Korea and allows a marginal engagement with the regime worth the price? Doubtless among would-be nuclear weapons states such as Iran and Syria, the deal will be seen as a model. Rewards without concessions and disarmament without verification are standards that even Mahmoud Ahmadinejad can live up to. The likely outcome? Iran, Syria, and with them Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey and others will line up to become nuclear states. Meanwhile, even a partial lifting of sanctions by the U.S. will unlock the door for other countries and United Nations agencies to open their coffers to North Korea. The result will sustain the world's most ruthless regime, prolonging the danger it poses not only to its population but to the entire civilized world.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 May 08 - 10:53 AM

I had been quite sure it was Liechtenstein that was next, not Iran or North Korea.

I was wrong.

It seems that Liechtenstein has made such extraordinary progress in their development of absolutely dreadful WMDs in the last year...the extent of which is not generally known but which would terrify the American public if they did know....that Washington no longer DARES to attack Liechtenstein or even threaten to!!!

This is an extraordinary development, and it may be the beginning of what will be known as "the Liechtensteinian Century" in future history books.

Liechtenstein now has a weapon that can instantly emasculate every American male at the push of a button and reduce his remaining weenie to the size of a baby's little finger. It can also make all the Walmart stores and cineplexes crumble into dust and simultaneously cause marijuana plants to grow luxuriantly on all the lawns and parks across American, thus making enforcement of the marijuana laws effectively impossible, and contributing to a breakdown in American morals and standards (not that there was much left to destroy in that sense...but...well, you know...).

Liechtenstein is biding its time for now and has made no public announcements regarding the situation, but their secret activities are well known by governmental intelligence services in all the great powers.

We are witnessing an unforgettable moment in world history, a sea change in human affairs.

Watch Liechtenstein! The "sleeping croissant" is about to awaken, and when it does it will shake the world.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 May 08 - 07:12 AM

Washington Post:

The Right Path With N. Korea

By Siegfried S. Hecker and William J. Perry
Tuesday, May 13, 2008; Page A15

The Bush administration's North Korea strategy is being criticized from the right and the left for letting Pyongyang off the hook. Some advocate scuttling the six-party talks. Others suggest slowing our own compliance with the agreement to get North Korea to make a full declaration of its nuclear program first. We disagree with both positions. Our mantra should be: It's the plutonium, stupid.

North Korea does have the bomb -- but a limited nuclear arsenal and supply of plutonium to fuel its weapons. The Yongbyon plutonium production facilities are closed and partially disabled.

In separate visits to North Korea in February, we concluded that the disablement was extensive and thorough. We also learned that Pyongyang is prepared to move to the next crucial step of dismantling Yongbyon, eliminating plutonium production. This would mean no more bombs, no better bombs and less likelihood of export. After this success, we can concentrate on getting full declarations and on rolling back Pyongyang's supply of weapons and plutonium.

We must not miss this opportunity, because we have the chance to contain the risk posed by North Korea's arsenal while we work to eliminate it. As dismantlement proceeds, negotiations should focus concurrently on the plutonium declaration, the extent of the uranium enrichment effort and Pyongyang's nuclear exports.

Pyongyang's declaration of 30 kilograms of plutonium (sufficient for roughly four to five bombs) falls short of the estimate of 40 to 50 kilograms, based on our past visits. We believe that North Korea is prepared to produce operating records and permit access to facilities, equipment and waste sites for verification. Obtaining and verifying its declaration of plutonium production and inventories is imperative. Let's proceed.

Pyongyang continues to claim that it has made no efforts to enrich uranium, despite strong evidence to the contrary. Although it appears unlikely that these efforts reached a scale that constitutes a weapons threat, a complete accounting is required. Dismantlement of the Yongbyon facilities should not, however, be postponed to resolve this issue. In October 2002, the Bush administration accused North Korea of covert uranium enrichment, only to have Pyongyang withdraw from the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and produce plutonium to fuel the arsenal that we are now attempting to eliminate.

Nuclear exports are of greater concern. As recently revealed evidence demonstrates, North Korea sold nuclear technology to Syria, much as it sold missile technology. North Korea must cooperate if we are to get to the bottom of the Syrian incident and ensure that it is not repeated elsewhere. Israel eliminated the Syrian threat, for now, by bombing the reactor at Al Kibar. But it is imperative that Pyongyang reveal the nature and extent of its export operations and, most important, whether it has similar deals underway with Iran.

We do not advocate letting Pyongyang off the hook, but a "confession" regarding Syria is not the critical issue. We have good knowledge of what the North Koreans supplied to Syria. What we really need is information from North Korea that will help us deal with potential threats. For example, was North Korea acting alone, or was it part of a more sophisticated proliferation ring involving Pyongyang's trading partners and suppliers? North Korea's leadership must resolve all three declaration issues fully, and these will take time to verify.

To ultimately succeed in the peaceful elimination of nuclear weapons, we must understand why North Korea devoted its limited resources to going nuclear. The September 2005 six-party joint statement addresses many of these concerns, promising mutual respect for national sovereignty, peaceful coexistence, and a commitment to stability and lasting peace in Northeast Asia, as well as normalization of relations. Given the acrimonious history of our relations, such steps require a transformation in the relationship between North Korea and the United States, a change that will first require building trust -- step by step.

The six-party negotiations have put us on that path, and there is much evidence of winds of change blowing in North Korea that will make navigating that path easier (the recent New York Philharmonic concert in Pyongyang is one such symbol of change; the joint industrial facility at Kaesong is another). But North Korea's reluctance to provide full declarations and the Syria revelations have moved us in the wrong direction.

Nevertheless, walking away from the talks or slowing them at this point would be counterproductive. Instead, in its remaining months, the Bush administration should focus on limiting North Korea's nuclear capabilities by concluding the elimination of plutonium production. If it can also get answers on the Syrian operation and resolve the question of uranium enrichment, it will put the next administration in a stronger position to finally end the nuclear threat from North Korea.

Siegfried S. Hecker and William J. Perry are with the Center for International Security and Cooperation at Stanford University. Hecker was director of the Los Alamos National Laboratory from 1986 through 1997. Perry was secretary of defense from 1994 through 1997.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 13 May 08 - 05:59 PM

Thing I've missed has been Dianavan's anual WAG's at who it would be next - Whatever happened to Azerbijan? She predicted that as a hot favourite if I remember correctly.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 May 08 - 08:12 PM

updated 1 hour, 51 minutes ago


Iran holds back nuclear details, IAEA says
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors say they can't get clear info from Iran
The agency has not detected "the actual use of nuclear material" by Iran
Iran maintains its nuclear ambitions are peaceful





(CNN) -- Iran is still withholding critical information that could determine whether it is trying to make nuclear weapons, the International Atomic Energy Agency said in a restricted report.

The nine-page report, obtained by CNN on Monday, detailed a number of recent meetings with Iranian officials who deny conducting weapons research and continue to stymie the United Nations' nuclear watchdog agency.

"The agency is continuing to assess the information and explanations provided by Iran," the report said. "However, at this stage, Iran has not provided the agency with all the information, access to documents and access to individuals necessary to support Iran's statements."

Iran has said its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes, namely energy for power lines, and in the past has described interactions with the IAEA as positive.

But the May 26 report -- to be released June 2 to the Board of Governors -- hinted at the frustrations of the IAEA investigators who want clear answers about the program.

The report said Iran still has not disclosed full information about its work on high-explosive testing and missile design work, as well as the "green salt project" studies -- research involving uranium tetrafluoride, a precursor to uranium hexafluoride, which is used in gas centrifuges to make enriched uranium.

"The agency has not detected the actual use of nuclear material" in the projects. However, they remain "a matter of serious concern," and clarification of them is critical to assessing Iran's past and present program, the report said.

The IAEA said some of its member nations had provided information on these programs. But Iran dismissed the allegations as baseless and argued that the evidence contradicting the agency's claims was fabricated, the report said.

Iran also rejected the IAEA's concerns about its work to develop a highly precise detonator that would be suitable for a nuclear weapon. Iran said the research was for civil and conventional military use, according to the report.

Still, Iran has remained open to the IAEA's surveillance and containment of nuclear material at its fuel enrichment plant.

Over the past year, IAEA investigators conducted 14 unannounced inspections of the facility, the report said.

Iran's nuclear program has spurred concerns by the United States and much of the West. In March, after the IAEA released a similar report on the program, the United Nations Security Council voted to impose new sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program.

That report said Iran had clarified many of the outstanding issues regarding its nuclear program, but that it had not suspended its activities related to enrichment of uranium, and that doubts remained about whether the country's program had a peaceful aim.

The latest U.N. sanctions against Iran tighten travel and trade restrictions on people and companies associated with the nation's nuclear program. The sanctions also allow searches of cargo suspected of carrying prohibited equipment and the monitoring of Iranian banks suspected of having links to proliferation activities.

Iran has condemned the resolution as "politically motivated" and "unlawful and illegitimate."

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Amos
Date: 26 May 08 - 08:19 PM

Wotta headache, eh?

Especially with the really terrible precedent of Iraq. Hard to know what is true and what is not.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 26 May 08 - 10:11 PM

CANADA, as the No. 1 supplier of petroleum to the United State, is the obvious target.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 May 08 - 10:32 PM

Doobie, doobie, do....da, da, da, da, dah...

Doobie, doobie, do....

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 27 May 08 - 01:50 AM

"Doobie, doobie, do..." Indeed Little Hawk, here's what you said three and a half years ago on the subject:

"Little Hawk - PM
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 10:24 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What happened then Little Hawk?

Iran continues to be the worlds greatest sponsor of terrorism and has been identified as a major cause for concern by the IAEA.

Syria engaged in secret negotiations with Israel that could soon result in Lebanon/Hezbollahville being the only "frontline state" confronting Israel over her right to exist.

Venezuela has been more or less completely ignored irrespective of how much Chavez tries to ramp up tension in the area. Tried very hard with Columbia but had to back down. Nobody is really interested and like all populist leaders in South America, Chavez will be the person who brings Chavez down.

North Korea has negotiated a deal, except this time due to US insistance it has had to make the same deal with all five nations that rate as interested parties.

Cuba, well the replacement of one Castro by another has brought some commonsense to the equation, that will only improve. Guess what Little Hawk, people in Cuba can now have free choice of what hotels they stay in, travel restrictions although not lifted completely have been "eased", what an absolute paradise they must live in. It makes one wonder why so many want to escape.

Democracies either side of Iran - not too shoddy a picture there either, after all in both Afghanistan and in Iraq there exists no Supreme Council of 12 "Old Gits" telling the people who they can elect and who they cannot. Might not be perfect but it is light years away in terms of improvement from what the people in both countries have experienced for the last forty years.

"Doobie, doobie, do..." Indeed.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 May 08 - 07:37 PM

Oh, piffle.

Sing me the one about "I've Got A Loverly Bunch of Coconuts", Teribus. I've not heard it in some time.

The longer the USA doesn't attack any of the countries on my hypothetical list of possible targets, the happier I will be. I am simply delighted that no further American-sponsored wars have broken out since 2003, and I hope it continues that way for at least a century, by which time you and I will be long gone.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 28 May 08 - 07:58 AM

Oh, piffle.

Sing me the one about "I've Got A Loverly Bunch of Coconuts", Little Hawk. I've not heard it in some time.

The longer the USA is not attacked by any of the countries on my hypothetical list of possible attackers, the happier I will be. I am simply delighted that no further anti-American wars have broken out since 2003, and I hope it continues that way for at least a century, by which time you and I will be long gone.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 28 May 08 - 09:43 AM

Washington Post

Iran's Failed 'Litmus Test'
Will there be consequences for Tehran's stonewalling of U.N. nuclear inspectors?
Wednesday, May 28, 2008; Page A12

LAST AUGUST, the International Atomic Energy Agency struck a deal with Iran on a "work plan" for clearing up outstanding questions about its nuclear program within three months -- in other words, before December 2007. IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei, who launched the initiative as an end run around the Western campaign to stop Tehran's ongoing uranium enrichment, claimed that it would be a "litmus test." "If Iran were to prove that it was using this period for delaying tactics and it was not really acting in good faith, then obviously nobody -- nobody -- will come to its support when people call for more sanctions or for punitive measures," Mr. ElBaradei said in an interview last September with Newsweek.

On Monday, some six months after the expiration of the deadline, the IAEA issued a report saying, in essence, that Iran had not acted in good faith and was engaging in delaying tactics. "Substantial explanations" were still lacking, the agency said, for documents showing that Iran had worked on bomb-related explosives and a missile warhead design. Moreover, while the IAEA has been cooling its heels, the government of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been installing two new and more advanced sets of centrifuges at the Natanz uranium enrichment facility, without providing required notification. International inspectors were denied access to sites where the centrifuge components were manufactured. "Iran has not provided the Agency with all the information, access to documents and access to individuals necessary," the IAEA report says.

So will Mr. ElBaradei now support tough new punitive measures by the U.N. Security Council? We expect not. Like several of the Security Council's members, the Egyptian-born director is far less concerned with preventing an Iranian nuclear bomb than in thwarting those he describes as the "crazies" in Washington. As long as that mentality prevails, it's unlikely that Iran will face sanctions stiff enough to cause it to reconsider its defiance of the multiple U.N. resolutions ordering it to suspend uranium enrichment.

That, in turn, is bad news not only for President Bush but for Sens. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.). The two presidential candidates have been arguing over whether and how the United States should negotiate with Iran; Mr. Obama suggests that talks would be a key element of his strategy. But as Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates recently pointed out, negotiations won't work unless the United States and its allies develop "leverage, either through economic or diplomatic or military pressures, on the Iranian government so that they believe they must have talks with the United States because there is something they want from us."

At the moment, such leverage is manifestly lacking. How could it be brought about, despite the obstructionism of actors such as Mr. ElBaradei? That, more than the facile subject of whether to negotiate, would be a worthy point for the presidential candidates to address.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 May 08 - 10:34 AM

America, like Nazi Germany or Japan or Italy in the late 30's, is presently laying the ground for a very large anti-American war, BB, and in much the same fashion: by unprovoked aggression and grand imperialism.

Like a good many honorable gents such as Hans Rudel, Adolf Galland, Werner Moelders, Erich Hartmann, Sho-ichi Sugita, Saburo Sakai, Hiroshi Nishizawa, Tameichi Hara, Tetsuzo Iwamoto, etc....you have simply not yet realized that you are serving on the wrong side in this one. You can't see past your own national identity to what's really happening. That's not unusual. At least 95% of humanity is the same as you in that respect. People naturally back the home team, even when the home team is the aggressor and is dead wrong. They believe the propaganda, and they think they are engaging in legitimate defence of their homeland, not aggression.

I wish all such honorable gents the best of luck in time of war...personally speaking, I mean. I don't necessarily hope that their side wins, but I do hope that they live through the mess they landed in and that they and their loved ones survive to rebuild when it's done.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 28 May 08 - 10:45 AM

LH,

Are you so sure it is not Russia, China, or Iran that will be the next Imperial Power?

Is it possible you are part of the 95% taken in by THIER propaganda?


Would you wait until the mushroom cloud destroys all hope of a peaceful world before you admit that Iran is both in violation of International Law, non-compliance with the NPT, and a danger to the world unless it ceases to work on nuclear weapons?


Have you read

Hiroshima ( by a German Jesuit who was there)
Level Seven
A Canticle for Liebowitz



I really do not want the use of nuclear weapons to become acceptable.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 May 08 - 11:11 AM

I think that China might well be the next predominant Imperial Power, BB, but they are not the present one (although they are being imperialists in Tibet, for sure).

The USA/UK coalition is the present predominant Imperial Power, and is acting as such. Therefore, I oppose it.

This sort of thing recycles itself endlessly and it moves around from one nationality to another. Imperialism changes hats after major wars. One rises and tramples around the world for a bit until it reaches too far and it alienates too many...then it falls.

Persia fell to Greece. Greece (and many others) fell to Rome. Rome fell to its own internal corruption and to barbarian invasions. And on it went. Much later Spain was the great imperialist of the world, but they fell from prominence after 1588, and Britain became number one for a long stretch. Napoleon put France on the top for awhile, but fell to a great coalition of all those he had alienated. In recent times the Czars fell, the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman and German empires fell. Then the fascists rose, and for awhile they did very well indeed...till mid-1942. Then they fell. Over their ashes rose two great empires...Stalin's Soviets and the American-dominated bloc symbolized by NATO. The Soviets fell by 1989 due to internal problems and fallout from the debacle in Aghanistan. We were supposed to get a "peace dividend" from that, remember? We didn't! No, because the Anglo-American empire now saw that there was no counterbalance left in the world against them and they felt free to rob and take over anything pretty well anywhere in the world (except within China). So they did. And they have been fighting a series of their own chosen wars in a series of places where they see something to gain.

Those wars were not any result of 911. 911 was not an attack launched on the USA by any sovereign nation. It was not an act of war. It was a crime. It was launched by a small group of secret operatives who were not serving any sovereign nation at all, but who were serving some special interests of their own. That's a crime, not an act of war, but it was used to get the American public to support unprovoked wars against sovereign nations.

It has been used as a spurious excuse to attack TWO countries now, two countries which did not attack the USA.

It's your version of the Reichstag fire, and it has served the same basic purpose...to panic your public into supporting extreme militarization and foreign wars of aggression and abrogation of civil rights and violation of your democratic traditions.

Yeah, sure, I figure the Chinese will be the next imperialist aggressor after Anglo-America. So what? The point is that I am concered about the present imperial aggressor....part of whose ground I am living on and that is the Anglo-American alliance. I am opposed to all such imperial aggressors, BB, not just those who speak a different language from me, and who live in a different part of the world.

When China takes the Imperial crown and wears it, I will regard them as the number one problem in the world, but they have not taken it yet.

And you know what? After them there will be another who does the same. There always is. You just have to wait long enough. Who will it be? I can't say. That depends on things that have not yet happened, and that you and I will not live long enough to see.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 28 May 08 - 12:31 PM

Oh deal the model-maker and wargamer's concise History of the World.

"China might well be the next predominant Imperial Power" - Think so LH? Oldest "Empire" in the world, never amounted to much because it has far too many internal problems to worry about. That continues to be the case for its current set of Communist "Emperors and Mandarins".

Odd that you should ignore India, potentially far, far more powerful than China.

So Persia fell to Greece. Greece (and many others) fell to Rome. Rome fell to its own internal corruption and to barbarian invasions. But not a word about either Charlemagne or Genghis Khan, strange.

"Much later Spain was the great imperialist of the world, but they fell from prominence after 1588, and Britain became number one for a long stretch."

Naw LH, there were quite a number of "Imperialists" toddling about around this time, you really should read what occured after the death of Charlemagne. There were two "Super-Powers" in Europe at this time France and Spain, you also had the Holy Roman Emperor whose progeny would create what would become known as the Austro-Hungarian Empire, in terms of overseas exploration the Portuguese were also in there pitching. One thing is for certain Spain was not all powerful. Another really significant player that you omit from your list the Ottomans, what about their Empire LH. So you see it was quite a melting pot with no defined "cock o' the walk". England and The Netherlands around this time were opportunistic small timers, and it would be a long, long time after 1588 before the British Empire took form and centre stage.

The British Empire, like that of the Dutch and the Portuguese grew from trade not conquest, which is why it lasted and which is why there is still to this day the Commonwealth of Nations. France under Napoleon, attempted to forge an Empire by force of arms, he was not defeated by a coalition of those he had alienated as you put it LH, he was defeated by an alliance of countries that he had invaded - big difference.

The Tsarist Russian Empire? That was an implosion that brought that down, a failure to move with the times. German attempts at "getting a place in the sun" and later attempt at "Leibenstraum", were the same as Napoleon's grubby little local smash and grab, and just as short lived.

Post WWII, you had the US and the USSR, with their respective "spheres of influence". The US tied those to her by economic means while the Communists of the USSR under Stalin had a bit of a different, and more direct way of keeping people in line (Hungary 1956 and Czechoslovakia 1968 are examples). Afghanistan had little or nothing to do with the collapse of the USSR, the final bullet to that Mastadon's head was Iraq in 1990, when the people of Russia saw the lie they had been sold for forty years exposed for exactly what it was.

"..the Anglo-American empire now saw that there was no counterbalance left in the world against them and they felt free to rob and take over anything pretty well anywhere in the world (except within China). So they did. And they have been fighting a series of their own chosen wars in a series of places where they see something to gain." - little hawk

Interesting theory but in reality a load of biased and emotive bollocks.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 May 08 - 12:39 PM

Yes, Teribus, India is another strong possibility for the next great Imperial Power. I wasn't igoring them, I just didn't want to take the trouble to type out every single possible example of potential imperialism that is out there. I omitted many examples of past imperialism also, because I was simply doing a quick overview of the concept to illustrate the general point I was making. You see, I don't want to develop carpal tunnel syndrome by typing 88,000-word-long posts that leave no single stone unturned just to satisfy your obsessive-compulsive need to engage in minutiae and thereby dominate other people (so you think). ;-)

You've got OCD bad, mate. Get help.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST
Date: 28 May 08 - 01:15 PM

This source looks like it answers the question in the thread title.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 28 May 08 - 01:21 PM

Nice neutral source....


And several of the claims ( re the UN and it's reports) are false.

So when will Iran comply with the UN and cease it's illegal activities?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 May 08 - 02:04 PM

When will Washington cease its illegal activities, BB? Its whole war in Iraq is illegal, and was so right from the start. Its continued occupation of Iraq is illegal. Its torturing of prisoners is illegal. Its offshore prison facilities in Guantanamo and elsewhere are illegal.

You just don't get it, BB. You're living in the current spiritual counterpart to Hitler's Germany...only still without the concentration camps (so far) or the attacks on Jews or some other such scapegoat...a nation which attacks whomever it pleases, whenever it pleases, for no reason other than that it pleases, and without any genuine provocation or justification...and legality be damned.

None of this has anything to do with legality, it has to do with the exercise of naked power by the Superpower.

I wonder, assuming Bush's alleged attack plan goes ahead this summer, what will happen afterward in regards to the American election and the next administration? Well, we'll have to wait and see. Hopefully this alleged attack will not happen at all. If it does, it will not be good for anyone.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 28 May 08 - 03:39 PM

No Little Hawk, what you tried to do is selectively present past history to support your own extremely bigotted and biased view of the United States of America, and why? Because you couldn't stand your corner in an arguement with some kids from the US when you moved down there - hence your "I'm always for the underdog. Immaterial if they happen to be in the right or in the wrong".

But if you are going to quote historical examples at least get the bloody details right in both fact and perspective.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 28 May 08 - 04:02 PM

Sorry, LH, but when the UN refuses to act in cases such as Cambodia ( 2 million killed), Rwanda ( 800,000 killed), Bosnia, Darfur, Burma, etc, IMO the acts of an "Imperial" power have greater moral value than the "legal" acceptance of slaughter. After all, what Hitler did to the Jews WAS legal, and would be so now if he had one.

IMO, the actions that the US has NOT done ( add Armenia to the above list) will be regretted far more than what we have done.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 May 08 - 04:10 PM

No, Teribus, I merely selected a few notable examples out of many, many notable examples of past imperialism. Period. I did not pick them particularly to reference the USA. After all, I included the Soviets and the French, didn't I? The USA is doing very well by itself (in partnership with the UK) and needs no help from me in ditinguishing it as the world's most aggressive and dangerous presently dominating imperialist power...the one that launches unprovoked invasions over spurious justifications.

You added a few more examples of past aggressive imperialism like Genghis Khan, etc. Great. I agree 100% with your examples. I'm sure that we could waste a great deal of further time naming ALL the additional examples of past imperialism that neither one of us has yet quoted. How about the Aztecs? Or the Iroquois? Or the Egyptians? Or the Belgians? Or the Portuguese? Or the Dutch? Or the Sassanids? Or the Magyars? Or the Moors? Or the ancient Israelites when they left Sinai and went into "the promised land"? Or the Babylonians? Or the Assyrians? Really, one can go on forever with that sort of thing.

My concern is strictly with the presently ruling imperial order....which is a coalition of the USA/UK/Canada/Australia (the last 2 are just junior partners, mind you, but they're definitely part of it).

You are a UK loyalist, and you can't believe that your guys could be in the wrong this time. (shrug) Why should that surprise me? You're a typical soldier in that respect. There's nothing unusual about it, and I don't expect anything to change your loyalist attitude one iota.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 May 08 - 04:27 PM

Well, BB, anything is technically legal within a given society if its lawmakers say it is, right? The question is, is it legal elsewhere, beyond their reach? What Germany was doing to the Jews (and other victims of Nazi policy) was not legal elsewhere, beyond the reach of Nazi control. Not in the least! What the USA has been doing to Iraq and to its prisoners in Guantanamo and other places is not legal elsewhere either. It is violation of international law. It's also violation of the principles embodied in your own Constitution.

It will eventually become a matter for war crimes trials if, as Germany did, the USA loses a great war. If not, well then the USA will escape its responsibilities in that regard, because only the losers of great wars pay for their crimes. The winners walk away scot free.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 05:04 PM

Iran: Time running out over nuke issue

Story Highlights
Iran's parliament speaker warns of countries making moves on Iran

Ali Larijani says any provocation would would "cost them heavily"

Larijani slams EU sanctions against Iran

   
(CNN) -- Iran's powerful speaker of parliament warned other countries Wednesday not to provoke Iran and cautioned against moves that would "cost them heavily."

Ali Larijani also recommended that Western nations consider the recent comments from U.N. nuclear watchdog chief Mohamed ElBaradei, who said Saturday that a strike on Iran would turn the Middle East into a "ball of fire."

"We advise you to take Mr. ElBaradei's warnings seriously and not to be after provoking Iran. In that case, you will face our predestined action, and returning to interaction will become impossible for you," Larijani said in parliament in Tehran.

The comments come amid concern in the West that Iran is intent on developing nuclear weapons. Iran insists that it wants to pursue nuclear power for energy purposes.

Israel also has warned about Iran's nuclear aspirations and in recent days conducted a large-scale military exercise in the Mediterranean. One U.S. military official said the exercise was in part a message to Iran that Israel has the capability to attack its nuclear program.

ElBaradei indicated that any strike would make Iran less willing to work with the West over its nuclear enrichment program.

At present, Larijani said Wednesday, "a little time was left for having interaction with Iran" regarding the program, according to Iran's Islamic Republic News Agency.

But Larijani, once Iran's chief nuclear envoy, slammed the European Union for its new sanctions against Iran, strictures issued even as the EU plans talks with Iran over an incentives package it hopes would convince Iran that it should halt uranium enrichment.

The EU sanctions adopted Monday include an asset freeze on Iran's Bank Melli and visa bans on some senior officials.

"If you are going to negotiate with Iran over the package of proposals, then why have you chosen confrontation before that?" Larijani asked.

He also issued a warning to the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and Germany, which have been engaged in the Iranian nuclear issue.

"If we feel that you are making decisions unilaterally and are using negotiations as an instrument to justify your illegal actions, be certain that the process will change," he said. "This is the path you have chosen to step in, and the responsibility of consequences will be yours."

IRNA quoted him as warning other countries against moves that would "cost them heavily."

"Do not add to the cost you should pay with making wrong assessments," Larijani was quoted as saying.

Iranian and Western analysts believe that an Israeli strike against Iran is not possible without American approval and logistical assistance. Iranians have said they would hold the United States responsible for any attacks by Israel.

Also Wednesday, an Iranian military official issued a warning against any provocative actions. The United States has said it wants to deal with the Iranian nuclear issue diplomatically but has left all options on the table.

Maj. Gen. Seyed Mohammad Hejazi, deputy commander of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, "suggested" that American leaders "be careful lest they face a new catastrophe."

"Our last word is that if you want to head toward Iran, be sure to bring with you a walking stick and a pair of artificial legs, because if you do come to Iran, you will no longer have legs to go back home with," Hejazi said.

The Israeli military, responding to questions about this week's military exercise, said its air force regularly trains for various missions so it will be able to confront and meet the challenges posed by the threats facing Israel.

In 1981, Israel attacked and destroyed the Osirak nuclear facility in Iraq, and in September it attacked a target in Syria that the United States believes was a nuclear reactor.

Israel and Iran long have been arch-enemies. Israel has long felt threatened by Iran's hard-line Islamic regime, and the Islamic Republic rails against the very existence of the Jewish state. The Iranian regime for years has criticized Israel's policies in the Palestinian territories.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 07:12 PM

Iran: time running out for the next unilaterally chosen and unprovoked American war of aggression, launched to attack someone else on the feeble and illegal excuse that that someone else might someday attack someone else...

The self-defence technique of Lapp-Goch, in other words, once advertised as a joke by National Lampoon, but based on solid past precedents set by Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan and Fascist Italy in WWII, now embraced by Britain and America to SAVE the world! Praise the Lord!

;-)

And for the umpteenth time.....it's LIECHTENSTEIN!!! Keep your eyes on "the Sleeping Croissant"!

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 10:05 AM

Well taking a look at the list presented to GWB by the intelligence agencies of the United States of America way back in December 2001 they had pegged Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Libya, Syria. Out of that lot Iraq no longer poses any threat, neither does North Korea or Libya who both voluntarily abandoned their nuclear weapons programmes. Syria is currently under investigation, but it is believed that that problem was scotched by Israeli intervention. That only leaves Iran, and the spotlight of the world has them firmly fixed in its beam. 80% outright success rate, not bad considering, well done the USA.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 Jun 08 - 11:30 AM

Washington Post:


Coalition Of the Ineffectual

By Richard Perle
Thursday, June 26, 2008; Page A19

"A successful multilateral coalition" is how Condoleezza Rice described those countries, "united in confronting Iran," on which the administration's Iran policy critically depends.

"A complete failure" is Barack Obama's description of the Bush administration's Iran policy.

They are both right. The secretary of state, whose born-again multilateralism has redeemed her standing at the State Department and among our allies, can rightly claim to have forged a coalition on Iran. But Obama (whose enthusiasm for multilateralism is at least as fervent) can rightly claim that Rice's coalition has failed to slow, much less halt, Iran's unrelenting nuclear weapons program or diminish its support for terrorist groups.

The coalition that Rice thinks a success, and Obama a failure, is, at best, a "do nothing decisive" group, with at least half its members -- Germany, Russia and China -- maneuvering for self-serving advantage in their dealings with the mullahs in Iran. Russia continues to assist Iran's nuclear program while selling Iran advanced weapons. China is prowling for oil deals and selling advanced weapons. German businessmen fill the lobbies of Iranian hotels (one can't be sure what they're selling). The Russians and the Chinese have made it clear that they will not support sanctions that are severe enough to exert any real influence, and while Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, has been outspoken in her disparagement of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, her words -- like our president's -- fly up, while her (and his) government's thoughts remain below.


For their part, the Iranians, undeterred by Rice's "successful multilateral coalition," are relentlessly building a nuclear weapons program while supporting terrorism and subversion in Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria and Israel. The mullahs took only scornful notice of President Bush's appeals to an even larger coalition, "the world," when he said, on May 18, "To allow the world's leading sponsor of terror to gain the world's deadliest weapon would be an unforgivable betrayal of future generations. For the sake of peace, the world must not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon." But allow it does.

There are lessons here. Soon after taking office, President Bush rejected several previously negotiated international agreements, including the Kyoto treaty, the treaty establishing the International Criminal Court, a protocol to the biological weapons convention and, in 2002, the treaty banning ballistic missile defenses. The reaction was angry and immediate: The United States, critics charged, had abandoned the multilateralism of the Clinton years for a high-handed "unilateral" approach that alienated our allies and undermined the alliances on which our security was said to depend.

This idea became a centerpiece of John Kerry's presidential campaign. He called for "a bold, progressive internationalism that stands in stark contrast to the too often belligerent and myopic unilateralism of the Bush administration," the conventional wisdom echoed by countless politicians, commentators and opinion polls these past seven and a half years. We are certain to hear more of the same in this year's presidential election.

Most often, "multilateral" has referred to policies that were either established in multilateral agreements or blessed by the United Nations, our European allies or both. Left implicit among those preaching multilateralism was the idea that a multilateral solution was always available, if only the administration had been willing to adopt it. It has often been said, wrongly, that the Bush administration opposed working with allies and preferred to go it alone. But a preference for going it alone never was the problem.

The problem, rather, is a dangerous confusion between ends and means, and it is a confusion shared by Condi Rice and Barack Obama. Coalitions, even successful multilateral ones, are instruments, tools, means to an end. They are important and useful, sometimes essential, but they are not, and must not be seen as, ends in themselves. Confusion on this point can lead to claims of success when failure is staring you in the face.

How else should we judge progress as we seek to end Iran's drive for nuclear weapons and its support for terrorism? We have a multilateral coalition. It is "united." But it has not, and almost certainly will not, do the thing for which it has arduously been put together.

Building multilateral coalitions entails compromise: to entice countries to join, to keep them on board, to order priorities, to achieve consensus on an action plan. Sometimes the compromises are worth it because the coalition goes on to achieve an objective that we could not possibly have achieved alone. Sometimes they are not, as when members are unwilling or unable to take effective measures and our own freedom of action is encumbered -- or worse, when satisfaction at having created a multilateral coalition becomes a substitute for achieving our objective. That is the case as the united multilateral coalition "confronts" Iran.

One can argue whether we alone can prevent an "unforgivable betrayal of future generations," as President Bush has put it. But the way to develop strategy for doing that begins by recognizing that the multilateral approach is failing. Seven and a half years after denouncing Iran's nuclear weapons program, a hapless president and his coalition can only look on while the Iranians rush to the finish line.

Art for art's sake is beautiful. Multilateralism for its own sake is not.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Jul 08 - 12:47 PM

Iranian president says no war with US, Israel

By VIJAY JOSHI, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 39 minutes ago



KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Tuesday that he sees no possibility of a war between his country and the United States or Israel.

He also predicted Israel would collapse without Iranian action.

"I assure you that there won't be any war in the future," Ahmadinejad told a news conference during a visit to Malaysia for a summit of developing Muslim nations.

The Israelis "are a complex political group, but you should know this regime will be eventually destroyed and there is no need of any measure by Iranian people," he said when asked to comment on whether he has called for the destruction of Israel.

Ahmadinejad's comments came a day after Iran's Revolutionary Guards said in a statement that the country was holding a military drill involving "missile squads" and warned that the country would retaliate against any military strike by targeting Tel Aviv and U.S. warships in the Gulf.

Iranian officials have been issuing a mix of conciliatory and bellicose statements in recent weeks about the possibility of a clash with the U.S. and Israel.

Ahmadinejad has in the past called for Israel's elimination. But his exact remarks have been disputed. Some translators say he called for Israel to be "wiped off the map," but others say that would be better translated as "vanish from the pages of time" — implying Israel would disappear on its own rather than be destroyed.

Ahmadinejad also said Tuesday that the next U.S. administration "would need at least 30 years in order to compensate, renovate and innovate the damages done by Mr. Bush."

"Today, the government of the United States is on the threshold of bankruptcy — from political to economic," Ahmadinejad said.

"The greatest threat in the Middle East and the whole world ... is the United States' intervention in other countries," Ahmadinejad said.

He urged Washington to heal its image by "relying on (the) basis of justice, humanitarian acts and respect for human beings."

For months, Ahmadinejad and other Iranian officials have said they don't believe the U.S. will attack because of its difficulties in Iraq, domestic worries and concerns over the fallout in the region. At the same time, Tehran has stepped up its warnings of retaliation if the Americans — or Israelis — do attack it, including threats to hit Israel and U.S. Gulf bases with missiles and stop oil traffic through the vital Gulf region.

The Web site of the elite Iranian force posted a statement late Monday quoting guard official Ali Shirazi as saying that Iran would retaliate against any military strike by targeting Tel Aviv and U.S. warships in the Gulf.

"The Zionist regime is pushing the White House to prepare for a military strike on Iran," Shirazi was quoted as saying.

"If such a stupidity is done by them, Tel Aviv and the U.S. naval fleet in the Persian Gulf will be the first targets which will be set on fire in Iran's crushing response."

Israeli government spokesman Mark Regev would not comment on Shirazi's warning other than to say "his words speak for themselves."

State Department spokesman Gonzalo Gallegos said such statements by Iran were "unfortunately...not out of the norm."

"We continue to stress our desire to resolve this issue diplomatically," Gallegos added.

Israel's military sent warplanes over the eastern Mediterranean for a large military exercise in June that U.S. officials described as a possible rehearsal for a strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, which the West fears are aimed at producing atomic weapons.

The U.S. Navy's Fifth Fleet, headquartered in the Persian Gulf nation of Bahrain, is responsible for patrolling the Gulf, the Suez Canal and parts of the Indian Ocean.

Shirazi is a cleric who represents supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in the guards' naval force. Khamenei has the final say over all state matters.

The Guards' Web site also announced that forces were carrying out a military drill involving "missile squads," but did not say where it was taking place.

Iran's guards and national army hold regular exercises two or three times a year, but the statement did not say whether this drill was one of them or if it was a special exercise.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Jul 08 - 09:01 AM

Iran test-fires missiles in Persian Gulf

By ALI AKBAR DAREINI, Associated Press Writer
27 minutes ago



TEHRAN, Iran - Iran test-fired nine long- and medium-range missiles Wednesday during war games that officials said aimed to show the country can retaliate against any U.S. and Israeli attack, state television reported.

Gen. Hossein Salami, the air force commander of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards, said the exercise would "demonstrate our resolve and might against enemies who in recent weeks have threatened Iran with harsh language," the TV report said.

Wednesday's war games were being conducted at the mouth of the Strait of Hormuz, a strategic waterway through which about 40 percent of the world's oil passes. Iran has threatened to shut down traffic in the strait if attacked.

The report showed footage of at least three missiles firing simultaneously, and said the barrage included a new version of the Shahab-3 missile, which officials have said has a range of 1,250 miles and is armed with a 1-ton conventional warhead.

That would put Israel, Turkey, the Arabian peninsula, Afghanistan and Pakistan within striking distance.

"Our hands are always on the trigger and our missiles are ready for launch," the official IRNA news agency quoted Salami as saying Wednesday.

The report comes less than a day after Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad dismissed fears that Israel and the United States could be preparing to attack his country, calling the possibility a "funny joke."

"I assure you that there won't be any war in the future," Ahmadinejad told a news conference Tuesday during a visit to Malaysia for a summit of developing Muslim nations.

But even as Ahmadinejad and other Iranian officials have dismissed the possibility of attack, Tehran has stepped up its warnings of retaliation if the Americans — or Israelis — do launch military action, including threats to hit Israel and U.S. Gulf bases with missiles and stop oil traffic through the vital Gulf region.

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called Wednesday's tests "evidence that the missile threat is not an imaginary one."

"Those who say that there is no Iranian missile threat against which we should build a missile defense system perhaps ought to talk to the Iranians about their claims," Rice said while traveling in Sofia, Bulgaria.

A White House spokesman called the tests "completely inconsistent with Iran's obligations to the world."

"The Iranian regime only furthers the isolation of the Iranian people from the international community when it engages in this sort of activity," said Gordon Johndroe, spokesman for the National Security Council.

"They should also refrain from further missile tests if they truly seek to gain the trust of the world," he added, speaking from Japan where President Bush is attending the Group of Eight summit.

In late June, Vice Adm. Kevin Cosgriff, who was then the commander of the U.S. Navy's 5th Fleet, said any attempt by Iran to seal off the Strait of Hormuz would be viewed as an act of war. The U.S. 5th Fleet is based in Bahrain, across the Gulf from Iran.

Israel's military sent warplanes over the eastern Mediterranean for a large military exercise in June that U.S. officials described as a possible rehearsal for a strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, which the West fears are aimed at producing atomic weapons.

Iran says its nuclear program is geared only toward generating electricity, not weapons.

The Israeli exercise was widely interpreted as a show of force as well as a practice on skills needed to execute a long-range strike mission.

Shaul Mofaz, an Israeli Cabinet minister, set off an international uproar last month by saying in a published interview that Israel would have "no choice" but to attack Iran if it doesn't halt its nuclear program. Mofaz is a former military chief and defense minister, and has been Israel's representative in a strategic dialogue on Iran with U.S. officials.

On Wednesday, Israeli government spokesman Mark Regev said Israel "does not desire hostility and conflict with Iran."

"But it is clear that the Iranian nuclear program and the Iranian ballistic missile program is a matter of grave concern," Regev said.

The Guards and Iran's regular army routinely hold exercises two or three times a year.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Jul 08 - 12:50 PM

Iranian shelling reported in northern Iraq

Story Highlights
Shelling hit border villages in Qandil mountains area in Sulaimaniya province

Authorities: Party of Free Life of Kurdistan is based in the region

Kurdish region a contiguous area that spread across Iraq, Iran, Syria and Turkey


By CNN's Mohammed Tawfeeq
   
BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Iranian artillery shells rained down on villages in northern Iraq Wednesday where Kurdish rebels were thought to be operating.

A security official with Iraq's Kurdish Regional Government in Sulaimaniya confirmed the information.

The early-morning shelling hit border villages in Qandil mountains area in Sulaimaniya province and there were no reports of casualties.

Authorities say the Party of Free Life of Kurdistan is based in the region.

It is is part of an alliance of Kurdish rebel groups that includes the Kurdistan Workers' Party, which conducts attacks against Turkey from northern Iraq.

The Kurdish region is a contiguous area that spread across Iraq, Iran, Syria and Turkey and the Kurdish rebels in those regions are fighting for an independent Kurdish state.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Jul 08 - 01:59 PM

Leading diplomat calls Iran a top concern for U.S.

Story Highlights
NEW: Diplomat refuses to comment on report of increased covert operations in Iran

U.S. Undersecretary of State William Burns testifies on Iran before House panel

Burns appears hours after Iran test-fires a long-range missile

U.S. calls on Iran to refrain from further missile tests to help build trust

   
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Iran is as serious a problem as any the U.S. faces today, top State Department official William Burns said Wednesday, hours after the Islamic republic test-fired a long-range missile.

Burns, the undersecretary of state for political affairs, made the comments testifying before the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

The committee's chairman, Rep. Howard Berman, D-California, said in his opening statement, "Stopping Iran's nuclear quest is our most urgent strategic challenge."

But Burns, the highest-ranking career diplomat at the State Department, said the United States should not overestimate the threat Iran poses, saying the country's economy is weak and it is diplomatically isolated.

"Iran is not 10 feet tall, nor is it even the dominant regional actor," he said. "Because of its behavior, it can't count on any friends except for Cuba, Venezuela and Belarus."

He added, "And the world's leading financial institutions have largely stopped dealing with Iran, and especially Iranian banks, in any currency. They do not want to risk unwittingly facilitating the regime's proliferation or terrorism activities."

Burns said the United States is trying to work with other countries to press Tehran to stop its nuclear program and end support for militant groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah.

He said Washington is having mixed results.

He said Russia, which helped Iran build a nuclear reactor, "has moved to clamp down" on Tehran, though it has not unequivocally taken Washington's side.

China "has been frustratingly slow" to support the United States against Iran, he said.

Burns wouldn't comment when questioned about a magazine report this month suggesting President Bush had sought $400 million for covert operations inside Iran.

"I'm very well aware of the story, and I can't comment on sensitive intelligence matters," he said.

The White House reacted strongly to Wednesday's test-firing by the Iranians, calling it "a violation of United Nations Security Council resolutions and completely inconsistent with Iran's obligations to the world."

National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe said: "They should also refrain from further missile tests if they truly seek to gain the trust of the world. The Iranians should stop the development of ballistic missiles, which could be used as a delivery vehicle for a potential nuclear weapon, immediately."

He added that the United States, Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany "are committed to a diplomatic path and have offered Iran a generous package of incentives if they will suspend their uranium enrichment activities."

Iran maintains it is pursuing nuclear power for civilian use, not to build nuclear weapons.

Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, said the tests "demonstrate again the dangers it [Iran] poses to its neighbors and to the wider region, especially Israel."

"Ballistic missile testing coupled with Iran's continued refusal to cease its nuclear activities should unite the international community in efforts to counter Iran's dangerous ambitions," he added.

McCain supports working with Europe and regional allies to deal with Iran, not "unilateral concessions."

His expected Democratic opponent, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, said, "We need to change our policy to deal aggressively with the threat posed by the Iranian regime. Through its nuclear program, missile capability, meddling in Iraq, support for terrorism and threats against Israel, Iran now poses the greatest strategic challenge to the United States in the region in a generation."

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Amos
Date: 09 Jul 08 - 02:14 PM

Bruce:

Question: DO you think Iran should have the freedom to develop nuclear-powered electrical-generating capabiltiies?

The sad fact is that this administration has no understanding of how to deal with a tribal nation, nor any understanding of how they account face, machismo, and other such important cultural vectors; hence, no way to communicate. The bullyrag approach will simply force them to act more macho, according tot heir cultural boases. Ignoring that is as stupid as poking a stick into a wasp-nest. It's just stupid tactics.

There is probably some clear differential diagnostic between the two paths of nuclear technolgoy that could be used to make it clear which way they are going.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Jul 08 - 02:17 PM

Amos,

"Question: DO you think Iran should have the freedom to develop nuclear-powered electrical-generating capabiltiies?"

ANSWER: Yes, within the controls ( That the other signitories of the NPT have to comply with) that Iran has refused to accept.




Question: Do you think that Iran should have the freedom to develop WMD in violation of the NPT that they signed in order to get that nuclear power?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,Above 49
Date: 09 Jul 08 - 02:19 PM

you gotta love how bruce (up coming pun alert) liberally quotes from CNN, either he has shares or his politcal bias is showing. I know which one I'd bet on.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Jul 08 - 05:28 PM

Analysis: US and Iran appear on collision course

By MATTHEW LEE, Associated Press Writer
31 minutes ago



WASHINGTON - The United States and Iran appear on a collision course in the Middle East, firing off mixed messages that are raising world tension and roiling oil markets amid fears that an eventual confrontation may be military.

Both insist war is not imminent, but their sharp words and provocative actions are stoking uncertainty as Washington and Tehran joust for strategic supremacy in the oil-rich region where American might — along with that of its top ally in the area, Israel — has long been dominant.

Concern spiked on Wednesday when Iran test-fired nine long- and medium-range missiles during war games in the Strait of Hormuz, aiming to show it can retaliate against any U.S. or Israeli attack. The display followed a joint military exercise by Israel and Greece last month in the Mediterranean that many saw as a warning to Iran.

The Iranian missile tests drew a quick response from Washington, which said the launches were further reason not to trust a country that it already accuses of fomenting instability in Iraq, supporting Israel's foes and attempting to build nuclear weapons. The testing sent oil prices higher before they calmed down later in the day.

This despite the fact that leaders on both sides — President Bush and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad — had just this week tried to tamp down speculation that the use of force is inevitable.

As he nears the end of his presidency, Bush says repeatedly that diplomacy is his preferred option to deal with any threat posed by Iran's nuclear program, although he has just as often refused to take the military option off the table. Ahmadinejad, who has often spoken of wiping Israel off the map, this week dismissed talk of war as a "funny joke."

"I assure you that there won't be any war in the future," Ahmadinejad said Tuesday during a visit to Malaysia.

Shortly after Wednesday's missile tests, the White House didn't fling out any dire new warnings to Iran but settled for saying the testing was "completely inconsistent with Iran's obligations to the world" and served to further isolate the country.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice stood clear of discussing possible military responses, arguing that the tests instead were proof that a proposed missile shield for Europe, a system that has drawn vehement opposition from Russia, is vital to defending U.S. interests and allies.

At a Pentagon news conference, Gates allowed that there had been a "lot of signaling going on" in the escalation of rhetoric between Iran, Israel and the U.S., but he added he does not think confrontation is closer.

So why does speculation about conflict continue to grow?

A main reason may be that neither side appears able to judge the other's true intent.

U.S. officials say they can't discern Iran's motivations, citing the closed nature of the regime and ostensible differences between the country's hardline Islamic religious leaders, its Revolutionary Guards and moderates. Some Iranian leaders may want peace, but not others, they say.

While Ahmadinejad tones down his rhetoric, others in Tehran have stepped up warnings of retaliation if the Americans — or Israelis — launch military action against Iran's nuclear sites. They threaten to hit Israel and U.S. regional bases with missiles and stop oil traffic through the vital Gulf region.

Wednesday's launches "demonstrate our resolve and might against enemies who in recent weeks have threatened Iran with harsh language," said Gen. Hossein Salami, the Revolutionary Guard's air force commander, according to state media. "Our hands are always on the trigger and our missiles are ready for launch," he was quoted as saying.

At the same time, the Iranian leadership may face a similar quandary in judging U.S. intentions. While Bush, Gates and Rice are stressing diplomacy, other, more hawkish, elements of the administration, notably Vice President Dick Cheney, are using more bellicose language similar to that of Israeli officials who have been more outspoken about the possible use of force.

And, with Bush's second term waning, Iran's calculations are also likely to be guided by what it thinks the policies of the next U.S. president will be.

The Republican and Democratic candidates, John McCain and Barack Obama, both agree Iran is a threat. But they differ on how to deal with it.

Obama said the tests underscored the need for direct diplomacy with Tehran, while McCain's response mirrored that of the Bush administration and focused on tougher sanctions against Iran.

Some analysts believe Bush will act militarily against Iran before he leaves office in six months and that if he doesn't, McCain will, if he is elected.

John Pike, the director of GlobalSecurity.org, a defense, security and space intelligence consultancy, is one.

"Bombing is either going to be the last thing Mr. Bush does or the first thing Mr. McCain does," he said.

___

EDITOR'S NOTE: Matthew Lee covers U.S. foreign policy for the Associated Press and has reported on diplomacy and international affairs for 14 years.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 09 Jul 08 - 09:27 PM

If Mr. Bush would like to see US gas prices at $10.00 per gallon, long lines at gas pumps, millions of people unable to get to work because they either can't get or can't afford gas for their cars, empty grocery shelves because truckers can't afford diesel fuel, and thousands of angry people in the streets performing acts of civil unrest that make those of the late '60s look like something from "Mary Poppins" then, by all means, he should attack Iran. It would give him a great opportunity to declare a state of emergency, suspend the Constitution, call off the upcoming elections, throw millions of us into those waiting-to-be-filled detainment camps out in the desert, and declare himself "President Until Things Get Back to Normal" which, of course, they never will.

If it happens, ya'll have fun. I'll stay here in the woods and eat possums and armadillos while the rest of you starve.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 12:21 AM

Maybe both the Bush administration and the Iranian government are ratcheting up the rhetoric in order to artificially inflate the price of oil. The Bush administration on behalf of their cronies in the oil industry, and the Iranian govt. because they are also benefiting from high oil prices. It definitely wouldn't surprise me if this was the case.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 01:23 PM

NKorea nuclear talks resume, focus on verification

By KWANG-TAE KIM, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 29 minutes ago



BEIJING - Negotiators resumed talks Thursday on North Korea's nuclear disarmament, looking to lay out a program for what could be a lengthy attempt to verify the country's declaration of its atomic materials.

The latest round of six-nation talks comes after North Korea handed over the much-delayed list late last month and then blew up a cooling tower for its main nuclear reactor to demonstrate its commitment.

"I want to emphasize that all of us gathered here share the same strategic objectives," China's nuclear envoy, Wu Dawei, said at the start of the talks. "The ultimate objective is the realization of a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula."

Wu said that steps forward, including the recent declaration, meant the hard work was paying off.

"All these successes have led us to believe that if we work together, stick to the guidelines and concepts, honor our commitments, the strategic goals will undoubtedly be realized," he said.

After the parties adjourned for the day, South Korean envoy Kim Sook said they met in a "serious and businesslike atmosphere."

Negotiators touched on the four topics that will be addressed during the talks, but the most discussion was on the top item — establishing a verification and monitoring mechanism, Kim said.

The other topics are the completion of energy aid promised to North Korea, details of a meeting for the foreign ministers of the six countries, and future steps in the disarmament process.

Negotiators planned to resume Friday morning, with a separate working group meeting on the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula planned if the verification talks make progress, Kim said.

Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill told reporters earlier that after agreeing on the verification process, the verification itself "will take several weeks or even months, actually."

Some basic agreements on the process include interviews with North Korean officials and site visits, Hill said. "There are a lot of details that need to be fleshed out," he said.

In response to North Korea's declaration, the United States announced it would remove the North from a list of state sponsors of terrorism and relax some economic sanctions against the communist nation.

The exchanges paved the way for the resumption of the six-nation meetings in Beijing after a nine-month lull. The talks also include South Korea, Japan and Russia.

The nuclear standoff began in late 2002 when the U.S. accused the North of seeking to secretly enrich uranium in violation of a 1994 disarmament deal.

The architect of Pakistan's nuclear program, Abdul Qadeer Khan, told The Associated Press last week that he recalled uranium enrichment equipment being sent from Pakistan to North Korea in 2000.

The United States had previously insisted that North Korea detail its alleged uranium enrichment program as well as nuclear cooperation with Syria in the declaration.

But Washington has apparently backed down from that demand, drawing criticism from American conservatives who say the Bush administration is going too far to strike a deal with the North before leaving office next year.

On Thursday, North Korea accused U.S. conservatives of trying to "scuttle the denuclearization process on the Korean peninsula."

"What should not be overlooked is that the U.S. conservative hard-liners have seriously misinterpreted (North Korea's) willingness and efforts for denuclearization in order to serve their interests," the North's official Korean Central News Agency said in a commentary.

"This proves what extent of their hostile policy toward (North Korea) has reached," it said.

North Korea's nuclear declaration, which was delivered six months later than the country promised, is said to only give the overall figure for how much plutonium was produced at its main Yongbyon nuclear complex — but no details of bombs that may have been made.

Experts believe the North has produced as much as 110 pounds of weapons-grade plutonium, enough for up to 10 nuclear bombs.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Amos
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 01:26 PM

Good luck on those possums and 'dillos, BWL. Hope you're starting a breeding program so you won't run out.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 10:50 PM

The Israelis are likely to do Bush's dirty work for him.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 23 Jul 08 - 09:13 AM

Rice presses North Korea on nuclear program
By MATTHEW LEE, Associated Press Writer
50 minutes ago



SINGAPORE - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice urged North Korea to accept terms to verify the dismantling of its nuclear weapons program, as the two countries ended a four-year hiatus in cabinet-level talks on Wednesday.

Rice told North Korean Foreign Minister Pak Ui Chun that his nation must move quickly to prove it has told the truth about its past atomic activities if it wants to improve ties with the United States, its immediate neighbors and end its international isolation.

"We didn't get into specific timetables, but the spirit was good because people believe we have made progress," she told reporters after the meeting on the sidelines of an Asian security forum in Singapore.

"There is also a sense of urgency about moving forward and a sense that we can't afford to have another hiatus," Rice said of her talks with Pak and the foreign ministers of the other four nations — China, Japan, Russia and South Korea — involved in the effort.

In a brief one-on-one exchange at the end of the 80-minute meeting, she reminded Pak of the importance the United States places on the process and also on North Korea resolving the issue of Japanese citizens it abducted in the 1980s, a senior U.S. official said.

The official spoke on condition of anonymity to describe a private diplomatic exchange.

Rice said there had been "no surprises" at the gathering, which had been characterized as informal and informational, and agreed with her counterparts that all six parties to the talks had reaffirmed their commitment to the ultimate goal of denuclearizing North Korea.

"I think this is quite significant," said Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi. "It shows the six parties have the political will to move forward with the ... process."

Yang said the group had made "major headway" in obtaining verifiable accounting of North Korea's nuclear program and others said they believed the meeting would boost the effort ahead a formal ministerial meeting to be held at an as-yet-unscheduled date in Beijing.

"Although it was not an official meeting, I think it was a good opportunity to show that the six-party process is maturing," said South Korean Foreign Minister Yu Myung-hwan. "I think (it) will give a political impetus for further six-party talks."

Diplomats had expected Pak to present at least an initial response to the four-page proposed "verification protocol" that was given to North Korea this month after it delivered a declaration containing details of its nuclear program in June.

But just hours before the talks began, North Korea insisted it had met its commitments and said Washington must completely abandon its "hostile policies" toward the regime if the denuclearization process is to succeed.

"What is important in the next stage is that these measures should lead to a complete abandonment of hostile (U.S.) policies toward our republic," North Korean spokesman Ri Tong Il told reporters. Pyongyang maintains that Washington is intent on North Korea's destruction.

However, he also said that Pyongyang hoped the meeting would build momentum toward ending the declaration and verification stage and move toward a formal end to the 1950-53 Korean War, which closed with an armistice rather than a peace treaty.

Rice said there had been "a lot of discussion" about the proposal, which calls for intrusive inspections, interviews with scientists and a role for the U.N. nuclear watchdog, but would not say if the North had moved beyond preliminary objections to some of elements.

However, she insisted that the meeting "was actually very good."

"It wasn't a standoff with people just stating their positions ... it was interactive," she said.

Wednesday's meeting marked the first time since 2004 that the top diplomats from the United States and North Korea have met face-to-face.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Jul 08 - 11:22 AM

I guess Korea must be next, since we have recently learned from Senator McCain that Iran doesn't exist.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Jul 08 - 11:32 AM

I have one word for y'all.

Just one word.

























Liechtenstein.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 25 Aug 08 - 04:34 PM

Obama would step up pressure on Iran over nukes

By BETH FOUHY, Associated Press Writer
8 minutes ago



DAVENPORT, Iowa - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama pledged Monday that he would step up diplomatic pressure to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons before Israel feels that "its back is against the wall" and might take military action.

Campaigning In Iowa on his way to the Democratic convention in Denver, Obama was asked about rumors that Israel had a "green lighted" an attack on Iran before the presidential election in November. Obama refused to comment on the rumors but acknowledged that Israel feels threatened.

"I will tell you having visited Israel just a month and a half ago, their general attitude is, 'We will not allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon,'" Obama said. "My job as president would be to try to make sure we are tightening the screws diplomatically on Iran, that we mobilize the world community to go after Iran's nuclear program in a serious way. ... We have to do it before Israel feels its back is against the wall."

Obama was referring to the possibility that Israel might try to destroy one or more of Iran's known nuclear facilities out of fear that any weapon that emerged would be used against the Jewish state. Israel would presumably launch an air strike only as a last resort and after the United States had decided against launching its own action. President Bush has always left a military option on the table but there is little time and less political support for a unilateral U.S. strike before Bush leaves office.

Iran denies it is seeking a bomb and insists it has the right to develop nuclear expertise to produce energy. Iran has all but ignored punitive sanctions levied by the United Nations, the United States and Europe and rapidly increased the pace of its nuclear development.

The Bush administration reversed course two years ago and agreed to join European diplomatic talks with Iran that are meant to roll back its nuclear program. Iran refused to meet a precondition that it shelve its enrichment of uranium during talks, and the U.S. offer went nowhere. Obama has said he would meet Iran's leaders for talks without precondition if he determined it would help.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 29 Aug 08 - 10:10 PM

Iran confirms nuclear component production

Story Highlights
Spinning centrifuges are used to separate uranium atoms to produce uranium

Uranium is concentrated enough for a nuclear weapon's fission chain reaction

West believes Iran's nuclear program intended to develop nuclear weapons
   
(CNN) -- Iran's deputy foreign minister said Friday that almost 4,000 uranium-enriching centrifuges are now operating at the country's Natanz enrichment facility, the national IRNA news agency reported.

Spinning centrifuges are used to separate uranium atoms to produce uranium concentrated enough for a nuclear weapon's fission chain reaction.

Ali-Reza Sheikh Attar told Iranian TV that another 3,000 centrifuges are being installed, IRNA said.

Iran announced nearly a year ago, in September 2007, that it had more than 3,000 active centrifuges. In April, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad promised to install 6,000 more over the coming year.

The United States and other Western nations believe Iran's nuclear program is intended to develop nuclear weapons, but Iran insists it is only for peaceful purposes.

The United Nations already has three sanctions resolutions against Iran for failing to suspend the program. Attar said Thursday the sanctions are "futile and ineffective," IRNA reported.

"Had Westerners become certain that the resolutions would bring us down to our knees, they would have definitely intensified (the sanctions)," IRNA quoted Attar as saying.

The five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and Germany -- a group called P5+1 -- offered a package of economic and other incentives to Iran in July if it suspended its nuclear enrichment program.

Iran failed to meet the group's deadline to accept the offer, leading the P5+1 to discuss further sanctions against Iran, a State Department spokesman said this month.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 15 Sep 08 - 12:23 PM

Iran stalls probe into alleged atom bomb research:

IAEA By Mark Heinrich
Mon Sep 15, 8:12 AM ET



VIENNA (Reuters) - A U.N. inquiry into intelligence allegations of secret atom bomb research in Iran has reached a standstill because of Iranian non-cooperation, an International Atomic Energy Agency report said on Monday.

"We have arrived at a gridlock," said a senior U.N. official familiar with the latest report, which urged Iran to take the intelligence allegations seriously to defuse suspicions its nuclear work is not entirely peaceful.

The confidential report also said Iran had raised the number of centrifuges enriching uranium to 3,820, compared with 3,300 in May, with over 2,000 more being installed.

But Iran seemed some way from refining enough uranium to build a nuclear weapon, if it chose, the report indicated.

Iran had stockpiled 480 kg (1,050 pounds) of low-enriched uranium so far. It would need 15,000 kg (33,000) to convert into high-enriched uranium for fuelling an atom bomb, said U.N. officials who spoke on condition of anonymity.

"That would be a significant quantity, one unit of HEU, and would take on the order of two years," said one official.

In its last report in May, the IAEA said Iran appeared to be withholding information needed to explain intelligence that it had linked projects to process uranium, test high explosives and modify a missile cone in a way suitable for a nuclear warhead.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Sep 08 - 12:24 PM

NKorea preparing to restore nuclear reactor

By HYUNG-JIN KIM, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 53 minutes ago



PANMUNJOM, Korea - North Korea said Friday it is making "thorough preparations" to restart its nuclear reactor, accusing the United States of failing to fulfill its obligations under an international disarmament-for-aid agreement.

It was the first time the communist nation has confirmed a reversal of steps taken since last year to disable its nuclear program because of Washington's refusal to quickly remove it from a U.S. terrorism blacklist.

"We are making thorough preparations for restoration" of the Yongbyon nuclear complex, Foreign Ministry Deputy Director-General Hyun Hak Bong told reporters.

The Foreign Ministry said North Korea no longer wanted to be taken off the blacklist.

"Now that the United States' true colors have been brought to light, (North Korea) no longer wishes to be delisted as a 'state sponsor of terrorism' — and does not expect such a thing to happen," said a ministry statement carried by the country's official news agency, KCNA.

North Korea "will go its own way," it said.

Under the landmark 2007 pact — involving the two Koreas, the U.S., China, Russia and Japan — North Korea pledged to disable its nuclear program as a step toward its eventual dismantlement in exchange for diplomatic concessions and energy aid equivalent to 1 million tons of oil.

North Korea began disabling the Yongbyon complex last year, and the process was 90 percent complete, with eight of 11 key steps carried out "perfectly and flawlessly," Hyun said.

In late June, North Korea submitted a long-delayed declaration of its nuclear activities and destroyed the cooling tower of its reactor at Yongbyon in a show of its commitment to denuclearization.

But the accord ran aground in mid-August when Washington refused to take North Korea off its list of states that sponsor terrorism, saying the North first must accept a plan to verify its nuclear declaration.

North Korea responded by halting the disabling process and is now "proceeding with work to restore (Yongbyon) to its original status," Hyun said. He did not say when complex might begin operating again.

Hyun spoke in the border village of Panmunjom before talks Friday with South Korean officials on sending energy aid to the North as part of the six-nation disarmament deal. The talks concluded late Friday afternoon.

Hyun warned Washington not to press the verification issue, saying verification was never part of the disarmament deal.

"The U.S. is insisting that we accept unilateral demands that had not been agreed upon. They want to go anywhere at any time to collect samples and carry out examinations with measuring equipment," he said. "That means they intend to force an inspection."

He said forcing North Korea to comply with such an inspection would exacerbate tensions.

The White House had no immediate reaction early Friday.

South Korean and U.S. officials say it would take at least a year for North Korea to restart the reactor if it is completely disabled.

South Korean officials urged the North during the talks at the border to resume disabling its nuclear facilities, saying energy aid is linked to that process, according to a South Korean official who spoke on condition of anonymity in line with government policy.

Friday's talks — proposed by the North — indicate it does not want to completely scuttle the six-party negotiations, analysts said.

"The North is sending a message that it wants to maintain the six-party talks," said Koh Yu-hwan, a North Korea expert at Seoul's Dongguk University. "The North also wants to get the remaining energy aid with winter drawing closer."

Seoul's delegate at the talks, Hwang Joon-kook, assured North Korea that it would receive the remaining energy aid it was promised.

But South Korea's foreign minister said North Korea's intentions remained unclear.

"It's still uncertain whether the North's measures are aimed at reversing the whole situation to the pre-disablement level" or are a negotiating tactic, Yu Myung-hwan told reporters in Seoul.

The tensions come amid reports that North Korean leader Kim Jong Il has suffered a stroke. Kim, 66, has not been seen in public for more than a month and has missed two major public events: a military parade marking North Korea's 60th birthday and the Korean Thanksgiving holiday.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 19 Sep 08 - 12:29 PM

With McCain in the White House, it will be both and more.