BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Jan 06 - 02:51 PM

and we obviously don't rule out any measures at all

I rest my case.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Jan 06 - 02:50 PM

I seem to have lost a post. Here it is again...

They don't need to restart the draft in the US to accomplish their agenda. They (those who are agitating for aggression against Iran) are just itching to use their new toys (tactical nuclear weapons) against someone. Iran appears to be the target they have selected.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060111/ts_nm/nuclear_iran_usa_dc

Iran says its nuclear program is entirely peaceful. The U.N. nuclear watchdog has found no firm proof to the contrary.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Jan 06 - 02:40 PM

"TEHRAN, Iran (CNN) -- The international community has reacted with outrage to the announcement by Iran that it would resume its nuclear research program, saying Tehran would face consequences if it carried through its plan.

"I am running out of patience, the international community is running out of patience," Mohammed ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, told Sky News.

"The credibility of the verification process is at stake."

German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, whose country has joined Britain and France in trying to reach a deal with Iran on its nuclear program, said that there were "very, very ominous signals" from Tehran and that a move by Iran to resume uranium enrichment would violate the agreement it reached with the three countries, known as the EU3.

"That cannot remain without consequences," Steinmeier said.

Austrian Foreign Minister Ursula Plassnik, whose country currently holds the rotating EU presidency, said Iran's decision to resume nuclear research was "the wrong step in the wrong direction and a cause of very serious concern." "

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Jan 06 - 02:34 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/01/11/iran.nuclear/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/01/09/iran.nuclear/index.html

""The first thing to do is to secure agreement for a reference to the Security Council, that is indeed what the allies jointly decide as I think seems likely," Blair told the British parliament on Wednesday.

"Then ... we have to decide what measures to take and we obviously don't rule out any measures at all." "

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: jaze
Date: 11 Jan 06 - 12:43 PM

The only way they could pull it off would be to restart the draft. There currently aren't enough soldiers. Somehow I have a terrible fear if anything is done to Iran. I think it would escalate into a global conflict and life as we know it would drastically change. Would Bush do it? My blood runs cold at the thought of what crazy people do when they're desparate.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Jan 06 - 09:18 PM

Let's hope so indeed.

My feeling is, though, that expanding empires normally start new wars when they have successfully concluded old ones...except when the empire is run by a lunatic or a fool... (as in the case of Hitler, who attacked Russia in '41 with Great Britain still fully engaged...and then declared war on the USA after Pearl Harbour, as his armies were being driven back from in front of Moscow! He was out to lunch.)

Is the USA run by people with judgement that bad? Possibly.

The war in Iraq has not been concluded successfully to this date...nor has Afghanistan, in truth, unless you consider enabling the re-creation of the World's biggest Asian drug trading business to be a worthy accomplishent.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Amos
Date: 10 Jan 06 - 08:41 PM

I'm with you on that one, OG. The last thing we want is a second front in the deserts.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,Old Guy
Date: 10 Jan 06 - 08:28 PM

I noticed that right after Baghdad fell there was all this bravado about "Syria is next" All that has died out and I haven't heard a squeek about starting another war.

I think the UN might do their job this time. Let's hope so.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Jan 06 - 08:17 PM

If that happens, say goodby to your suburban lifestyle and your 2 car garage.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: number 6
Date: 10 Jan 06 - 08:00 PM

China.

or China will attack the U.S.


sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Jan 06 - 07:57 PM

No way, LH. Nothing will stop the Western imperialist juggernaut. Not even if Iran was as meek as a kitten ( ...I suspect that would only hasten its demise).

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

So Iran it is then.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Jan 06 - 07:34 PM

Scary stuff. Sounds like a great prelude to another war that was wanted all along anyway by certain key players. (the big ones, I mean) But it will be difficult to arrange with unfinished business in Iraq and Afghanistan still on the front burner.

Is it the last straw yet for Jack? Don't touch that dial! Will Iran see reason, disarm, and become a liberal (oops!) democracy in the nick of time to head this one off? Please, God, no! That would be the very worst thing that could possibly happen here. Let's hope their crazy president says some really AWFUL stuff ASAP. Something quotable and totally insane. We need a new deadly threat to the World. We really do. Saddam just doesn't cut it anymore. He's soooo old. Yesterday's bad guy.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Jan 06 - 07:22 PM

CarolC,

"German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier questioned whether European-led negotiations had any future and said Iran had "crossed lines which it knew would not remain without consequences." He said he had asked ElBaradei to quickly evaluate the dangers of Iran's move.

Britain warned the international community was "running out of patience," and Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said Tehran had breached IAEA resolutions. "There was no good reason why Iran should have taken this step if its intentions are truly peaceful," Straw said.

Japan said the decision was "a matter of deep regret" and the Foreign Ministry called on Iran "to immediately cease the resumption of the research and development activities."

Iran's decision to freeze some nuclear activities in October 2003 was voluntary, so the IAEA said it had no option but to remove the seals at Iran's request.

The move further erodes the suspension of nuclear activities that has been the centerpiece of Iran's negotiations with the West since the freeze was put in place as a confidence-building measure.

In August, Iran removed seals at another nuclear plant outside the city of Isfahan and resumed uranium reprocessing — a step before enrichment in the nuclear fuel process.

That move prompted Europe to break off its negotiations temporarily. The talks that resumed in December made no progress but were to continue later this month.

French    President Jacques Chirac on Tuesday warned Iran it would commit a serious mistake if it ignored the international community."

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Jan 06 - 06:49 PM

Clinton Hammond is next. Mark my words. The man is intolerant, insufferable, intolerable, and simply detestable...and he kills innocent skunks. A surgical strike will be required, using some device such as...a stink bomb loaded with skunk oil, strapped to the nose of an MX missile tipped with a 700 megaton bag of shit. That oughta do it fine. Avoid his next few gigs. In fact, avoid downtown Windsor altogether, I'd say...but I always say that. ;-)

Other than that, my next best guess is still Iran at this point.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Jan 06 - 06:16 PM

I saw an article a few days ago that said Iran had permission from the IAEA to break those seals. I'll see if I can find it.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Jan 06 - 05:51 PM

TEHRAN, Iran -    Iran removed U.N. seals on uranium enrichment equipment and resumed nuclear research Tuesday, defying demands it maintain a two-year freeze on its nuclear program and sparking an outcry from the United States and Europe

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060110/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_nuclear

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,AR282
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 05:59 PM

We won't attack anybody because we no longer have the resources to do so. I guess that is one thing we can thank Bush for.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 05:11 AM

Good post Lepus,

I worked out in Azebaijan for a while, on the initial collapse of the USSR, the place got it's independence. Russia immediately regretted letting this happen, as you stated in their post the Russians are extremely sensitive about what occurs in that region. In the lead up to the final withdrawal of Soviet rule from Azerbaijan the KGB suppression of riots and civil unrest was brutal in the extreme. The founder of " The Aliyev Dynasty" mentioned by Lepus was the officer commanding the KGB in Azerbaijan at the time. He has since died and his son has taken over, having just "won" election in a vote that has been vigorously contested by the opposition.

There is an ongoing dispute between all the Caspian countries regarding offshore oil and gas exploration and extraction.

Initial fears of foreign investors related to something mentioned by Lepus, there are many times more Azeri's in Iran than there are in Azerbaijan, the fear was that fundamentalist Iran would win over the Azeri population of Azerbaijan. In fact as things turned out, all indications were that the reverse would be true, that secular and rapidly developing Azerbaijan would act as a magnet to repressed and frustrated Azeri's in Iran.

I agree with Lepus, Azerbaijan is in no danger of attack by the US. The main threat to the secular state of Azerbaijan comes from how quickly it's own rulers can downstream the developing wealth of the country to benefit the general population.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 22 Dec 05 - 03:22 AM

That was very informative.

A very good explanation (analysis)

...and besides that, it looks like the U.S. will occupy Iraq for a long time to come.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Lepus Rex
Date: 21 Dec 05 - 09:18 PM

I wouldn't worry about Azerbaijan, dianavan. (Or Iran, actually. Or North Korea. But I'll stick to Azerbaijan, here.) Absolutely no chance of a US invasion there, no matter how corrupt and brutal the Azeri leaders, and no matter how flawed their elections. The Aliyev Dynasty is decidedly secular, and Azerbaijan is by far the most secular of all Shi'a nations, so, no possible "war on terror" connections. And, as you mentioned, the US has generally cosy relations with Azerbaijan. The US desperately wants to keep the secularists in power, as the main alternative would be the Iranian-backed Islamists. Yeah, yeah: I know they made the mistake of toppling a secular government in Iraq, with predictable consequences. But even if he wanted to invade Azerbaijan, Bush couldn't just pull an invasion out of his ass in the next three years, especially with the ongoing debacles in Iraq and Afghanistan.

And, of course, there's the matter of Azerbaijan's neighbours:

Turkey shares ethnic and political ties with Azerbaijan, both being secular, Turkic nations whose people speak, basically, the same language. The two nations have their differences, but Turkey would, at the very least, strongly oppose an invasion of Azerbaijan, and definately deny the use of its land and airspace to American troops. At worst, an invasion could cause the two Turkic nations to unite, cause a schism within NATO, etc. And, of course, this would all involve Europe, as well.

And Iran, which has ethnic (about one quarter of Iranians are Azeri Turks, and Iran is home to the vast majority of the worlds Azeris) and religious (Shi'a) ties to Azerbaijan, would become involved, as well. And... well, I said I wouldn't go into Iran here, but just let me say that an American war against Iran would be utterly unwinnable. And with Christian Americans swarming over the place, Iranian and native-born Islamists would find even more fertile grounds than at present in Azerbaijan. The only result would be defeat for the Americans, and the creation of another Islamic Republic (like Iran, and, soon, Iraq).

And, perhaps most importantly, Russia would surely become involved if the United States were to invade its "Near Abroad." Even as toothless and weak as Russia is, there's no way the US would directly challenge it like that. But, just for fun, let's say the US invaded, Russia did nothing, and my Iranian scenario played out: Azerbaijan's population is radicalised, and Islamists take control. Russia would never tolerate the presence of such a nation on its borders, or, more specifically, on the Daghestani border. Afghanistan, Chechnya, Azerbaijan... Fun! :)

So, yeah, never, fucking ever gonna happen. Absolute fantasy. Bleh.

---Lepus Rex

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Dec 05 - 03:16 PM

Defense News 12/16/05
By Agence France-Presse, Berlin

Iran has bought 18 BM-25 missiles from North Korea which the Islamic Republic wants to transform to extend their range, the German press reported Dec 16. "Iran has bought 18 disassmbled BM-25 missiles from North Korea with a range of 2500 kilometers ( 1553 miles)," Bild newspaper said, citing a report from German secret services.

It added that Iran's ultra-conservative President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wants to have the range of the missiles "extended to 3500 kilometers". The newspaper said that until now Iran only had Shehab-3 missiles with a range of 1300 kilometers.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: leftydee
Date: 28 Nov 05 - 11:55 AM

I say "watch out' to whom ever on the never-ending list of enemies appears weakest the next time The Bushies need a distraction. This is the way of bullies. The raising of the terror alert to cover their tracks is a policy they won't forget.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 28 Nov 05 - 12:26 AM

Who's Next?
Iran or Korea?


Neither:       Azerbaijan.

Lots of oil there and the U.S. ally has recently been accused of attacking its citizens for protesting fraudulent elections.

Sounds like a perfect set-up for the U.S. military machine and Bush. Right between Iraq and Russia and very, very oil rich.

Time to depose another dictator. Thats why they're building all those bases in Iraq. Iraq is just a staging area.

Much easier to tackle Azerbaijan than Korea or Iran and far more profitable.

From the Guardian:
"http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1652164,00.html

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 07:39 AM

Bobert,

"the Bush apologists have blood on their hands"

IMO, it is those anti-war folks who protested US enforcement of the UN resolutions and did NOT demand that Saddam comply who have the blood on their hands. Shall I call them Saddam apologists?


Peace,

Total agreement on that.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 03:30 AM

Not sure what point you are trying to make dianavan (13 Nov 05 - 11:48 PM)

"One important point - THE MULTINATIONAL FORCE IS THERE AT THE REQUEST OF THE IRAQI GOVERNMENT.

The U.N., "...adopted a resolution extending the mandate of the multinational force in Iraq until the end of next year and allowing for a review of that mandate at any time, no later than mid-June 2006, or for its termination, at the request of the Iraqi Government."

It might have been a different story if the request had come from the U.S. so I don't think thats much of a blessing, do you?"

What request are you saying should have come from the US? Are you saying that the ultimate decision whether or not the MNF remains in Iraq should be taken by somebody other than the elected Government of Iraq?

The MNF is definitely present in Iraq at the request of the interim Iraqi Government, and will, in all probability, remain there for some time at the request of the elected Iraqi Government after 15th December this year. They are definitely there with the blessing of the UNSC, because if they weren't the UN would have the job dumped in their laps and at present the UN are to busy doing nothing about situations in Sudan (Darfur) and along the Ethiopian/Eritrean border to have to bother with doing nothing in Iraq.

I believe if you check through your posts you will find that to Iran in particular and to all other nations in the world you advocate the pursuit and acquisition of nuclear weapons as quickly as posible.

With regard to Bobert's question regarding the possible assassination of Saddam Hussein. Bobert is wrong his question has been answered many many times - He just didn't like the answers. But one more time: The assassination of Saddam Hussein would have accomplished absolutely nothing, it would not have changed the regime in power in Iraq, it could possibly have made matters worse in as much that Saddam would have been replaced by one of his sons, who were reportedly much worse that Saddam. Pointers to the likelyhood of that answer panning out as stated - look what happened in Syria when old man Assad died - did the Ba'athist Party remain in power (YES) did they cast round the loyal party members and make a list of potential candidates to take up the Presidency, or did they just hand it over to Assad's son (They did the latter)

On the benefits, if anyone cares to look at the numbers of suicide bombings in Israel in the four years prior to March 2003 and the number of incidents since you will find a marked reduction - anything to do with the ending of Saddam's funding and severe curtailing of support being received from Syria? The end of Syria's occupation of the Lebanon. Libyan renunciation of their WMD programme.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 11:48 PM

teribus - The UN have extended the mandate of the multinational force, because at this point, it would be all out civil war in the Middle East if the U.S. were to abandon their committments to Iraq and pull out immediately. One important point - THE MULTINATIONAL FORCE IS THERE AT THE REQUEST OF THE IRAQI GOVERNMENT.

The U.N., "...adopted a resolution extending the mandate of the multinational force in Iraq until the end of next year and allowing for a review of that mandate at any time, no later than mid-June 2006, or for its termination, at the request of the Iraqi Government."

It might have been a different story if the request had come from the U.S. so I don't think thats much of a blessing, do you?

As it is, looks like the U.S. may not be able to hold down their end of the bargain, especially since so many allies are pulling their troops. Here's my question, if the U.S. and Britain are so almighty, why can't they stabilize the region?

Seems pretty obvious to me that the U.S. and British invasion has created instability throughout the middle east, not just Iraq. Please tell me that democracy has brought peace and stability. I haven't seen that myself. I think most people are tired of living on a promise that seems more and more like a dirty little lie.

I do not recall applauding Iran or any other country for ignoring international rules and obligations. But, heh, if you really want to go there, when will the U.S. pay Canada the softwood money they owe us according to NAFTA?

The good ol' United States of Hypocracy and the British Emporer who wore no clothes.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Peace
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 09:45 PM

"I'd rather have Saddam in power in Iraq than the mess we have now"

I'd rather that Hussein had received a bullet in the brain two decades ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Bobert
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 09:36 PM

Ahhhh, like I siad on another thread, yeah, I'd rather have Saddam in power in Iraq than the mess we have now... Iraq has been completely destabilized by Bush's ill-thought-out rush to invade... He ignored those within the intellegnce communtity who felt that Iraq din't have WMD's... He ignored the fact that Hans Blix said the inspectors wetre given access purdy much to wherever that wanted to inspect.... Yeah, he invaded Iraq-mire and now look what we have!!! A complete civil war in Iraq-mire and we're in the middle of it...

Hey, fir about the ten thousanth time, my question to the Bush apologists is, "Hey, if Bush wanted Saddams head, why didn't he send some folks to get it???"

You know, I've asked that question so many times its now rediculous... And I have never gotten so much as an acknowledgment that the question has been on the table now pushing 3 years??? Like what's that about???

Well, I'll tell ya...

The Bush apologists haven't recieved their offical answer from their fearless leaders PR department so they ignore it like it was pit of radiation...

Normal, fir them...

Yeah, once they get their marching orders they are fine, fine, fine but without any orders they are like fish outta water...

And now that the Bush apologists have blood on their hands they are a bit touchy, to boot...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,Buffy
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 02:34 AM

LH:

You don't know fuck about Cuba. All you see as a tourist is what they want you to see.

I have a relative that lives there off and on. He can tell you some tails.
Like for instance the rice farmers have to spread their crop out along the side of the road to dry it in the sun. When you buy rice there you have to spread it out on the kitchen table and pick out all the dirt, rocks, bugs, twigs and grass before you cook it.
Hungry now?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Ebbie
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 07:46 PM

Wait a cotton pickin' minute- I can't let that pass about the Amish. Their silos are filled to the brim - yes. But in due time they will tell you with what.

The Amish make up all kinds of stories about themselves and their place in the world.

Once an Amish farmer was hauled into court to testify on someone's behalf. He was called to the front and told to raise his right hand and swear. He said, No, no. I can't swear.

The judge said severely, Mr. Yoder, you HAVE to swear. Bailiff, proceed.

The farmer said, Do I have to? Do I have to swear?

Yes, said the Judge.

The farmer heaved a big sigh and said, OK. Helly, helly, damn.

Ya can't leave for a dang minute.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 07:05 PM

Eh Dianavan,

The MNF are in Iraq with the blessing of the UN, in fact their mandate was extended, by the UN, until the end of 2006 on the 9th of this month. Check it out with the UN, I know that this might slightly piss on your parade but then, what the hell, you can't have everything.

Noted that you didn't answer the questions asked - just evaded them as usual - you appear to condemn the USA for ignoring international rules and obligations and applaud Iran for doing the same thing. There appears to be a lack of consistancy there, not unusual in those whose leanings politically are left wing and totally anti-American.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 10:41 PM

Its not a matter of preferring Saddam, its a matter of making sure you have the support of the U.N. and other member nations before you decide to 'go it alone'.

Either you abide by international treaties or you don't. Once the U.S. decides that the rules do not apply to them, everyone has to look after themselves. If that means seeking other trading partners, so be it. We win, you lose.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 09:27 PM

I can understand your concerns, Don. The Amish are very worrisome. Their very peacefullness makes them suspect, in my opinion. What do you figure they've really got in those grain silos?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 09:23 PM

Mars!

Not only do they have their WMDs so well hidden we can't find them, we can't even find the Martians! They obviously constitute a grave danger!

(And I'm pretty suspiciousl of the Amish, too!)

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 09:12 PM

So dianavan,

Propounder of cuddly thoughts and peace throughout the world. Please clearly and categorically state that:

You would prefer it that Saddam Hussein was still in power in Iraq with all the ramifications that that would have had on Iraq's poor benighted populace.

AND

That you are definitely infavour of the UN and all other countries in the world scrapping the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

Now you should have no trouble agreeing to this request, you have stated as much in your posts to date.

ALL WE REQUIRE IS THAT YOU CLEARLY STATE SO.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 07:02 PM

I gather that you are saying that it's Iran next, and not Korea, BB...

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 05:09 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/11/11/iran.nuclear.reut/index.html

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Donuel
Date: 11 Oct 05 - 11:40 AM

Robertson caused an uproar in August when he called during his televised religious program for the US government to assassinate Chavez. He later was forced to to apologize to the leftist leader.

But the conservative preacher issued a new denunciation of Chavez Sunday.

"The truth is, this man is setting up a Marxist-type dictatorship in Venezuela, he's trying to spread Marxism throughout South America, he's negotiating with the Iranians to get nuclear material and he also sent 1.2 million dollars in cash to Osama bin Laden right after 9/11," Robertson told

"I apologized and I said I will be praying for him, but one day we will be staring at nuclear weapons and it won't be (Hurricane) Katrina facing New Orleans, it's going to be a Venezuelan nuke," Robertson said.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Oct 05 - 03:09 PM

In his book, Freeh writes that he realized the United States was in a global war with terrorists after the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center and responses to terrorist attacks in the 1990s were inadequate.

"We lacked the political will, the spine, to take military action against our enemies," he told CBS. "It was obvious for years that that's what our position had been."

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/10/freeh.clinton/index.html

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Peace
Date: 11 Aug 05 - 07:32 PM

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1436082/posts

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Aug 05 - 07:25 PM

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iran/index.html


http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iran/index.html


Read, and make up your own mind...

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Aug 05 - 07:23 PM

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iran/missile/shahab-3.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Aug 05 - 07:21 PM

http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/Iran/Missile/3367_3395.html

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Aug 05 - 07:20 PM

Ballistic missile tensions in the Middle East rose significantly this week when Iran's Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani announced Wednesday that his country had succeeded in developing solid fuel technology for ballistic missiles.
"We have fully achieved proficiency in solid-fuel technology in producing missiles," he said.

That means Israel's densely populated coastal strip around and north of the city of Tel Aviv -- containing 70 percent of the country's population and 80 percent of its capital infrastructure -- which could be wiped out by a single nuclear strike, is vastly more vulnerable.

Solid-fueled missiles can be launched with almost no warning, far more quickly and reliably than liquid fueled ones and they are far more accurate.

Iran's intermediate range ballistic missile, the Shahab-3 has a range of 800 miles to 1,000 miles, allowing it to reach Israel.

The Shahab-3 was successfully tested in 2002. it is operated by Iran's hard-line Revolutionary Guards.

http://www.spacewar.com/news/iran-05zm.html






But of course they only want it for peaceful purposes.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,Blind DRunk in Blind River
Date: 11 Aug 05 - 07:14 PM

Olive Flippin' Whatnoll! A friend told me you was bad-mothin' me here. Well you can go FLIP yourself sideways down a minedshaft, eh? There ain't no one else who will! You are the worst flippin' thing I ever seen or heard of yet. You are sooo flippin' ugly that it goes way past what words could ever flippin'even say! You suck majorly. You are lower than a flippin' lampree. You are the flippin' Nitemare on Elm STtreet come to life! You take skankdom to a hole new flippin' level that would scare most men shitless. No guy that was anyways conshus would even ThINK about makin' moves on you, Olive, cos you are the flippin' nightmare from HeLL! Your husband has to be one of 2 things, eh? A totall nutcase or the worlds' biggest flippin' loser who could not find even a DOG that would give him the time of day! You twist the flippin' fabbric of time and, like, space itno some kind of horrible flippin' aborshun that would freeze the blood of a space vampire. Ozzie Osbourne would cross the street to flippin' avoid lookin' at YOUR UGLY face. You ain't even human. You are some kind of flippin' demon that popped outa the pit, know'm sayin'?

You just try takin' out Blind River, Olive! Go ahead. Make my flippin' day. We have pest exterminators here, eh? We don't tolarate vermin like you. So don't flippin' try it!

- BDiBR

p.s. Kiss the glove, you flippin' mega-skank!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Aug 05 - 04:51 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/08/11/iran.iaea/index.html

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,Mrs Olive Whatnoll
Date: 09 Aug 05 - 05:23 PM

If it was up to me we'd tyke out bofe Iran AND Korea wifout furtehr delay. Blast 'em to kingdom come I says! And then we'd tyke out Blind fecking River! Cor! Wot a lot of stupid gits must live there, judging by the rubbish wot BDiBR spews all the time. 'E's a useless layabout wot should be frown into jail again and LEFT there! It's a shame that Austrylia is not a penile colony loik it once was because if it was then we could send the young sot there and put 'im to work bustin' up rocks till 'e learns to mind 'is manners.

- Olive Whatnoll

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,Blind DRunk in Blind River
Date: 09 Aug 05 - 12:09 AM

I'll tell ya who is flippin' next...Quebec, that's who. Them flippin' frogs can't be trusted! They are out to take over the whole flippin' continant, one peice at a time. That's why I hadda take French in school. My French was so flippin' bad that it made my teacher, Miss Robitaille, cry one time! I felt kinda bad about that, but she shoulda known better than to try and teach French to a McBride, eh? Good flippin' luck!

- BDiBR (Shane)

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Aug 05 - 03:20 PM

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-08-08-iran-nuclear_x.htm