BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Peace
Date: 07 May 05 - 06:34 PM

About two years back I sent an e-mail to the CIA suggesting that the easiest way to calm North Korea down would be to lend South Korea a dozen missiles with nuclear tips. Then tell the North that ANY launch would occasion a reciprocal launch from the South. Never heard back.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 May 05 - 07:37 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/05/09/north.korea/index.html

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 May 05 - 10:38 PM

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7792877/

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 May 05 - 05:59 AM

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/05/15/nuclear.iran.reut/index.html

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 01 Jun 05 - 05:12 PM

Makes Ballistic Missile Breakthrough

A defence ministry statement said the new technology could be built into Iran's Shahab-3 missiles (pictured) - which the Islamic says already has a range of at least 2,000 kilometres (1,280 miles).
Tehran (AFP) May 31, 2005
Iran announced Tuesday it had successfully tested a new solid fuel motor for its arsenal of medium-range ballistic missiles, a technological breakthrough that sparked fresh alarm in Israel.
"The test was a success," Defence Minister Ali Shamkhani said on state television.

"When you fill a missile with liquid fuel, you have to use it quickly. With solid fuel, a missile can be stored for years. And in addition, it makes the missile more accurate and cheaper too."

A defence ministry statement said the new technology could be built into Iran's Shahab-3 missiles - which the Islamic says already has a range of at least 2,000 kilometres (1,280 miles).

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/iran-05p.html

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 01 Jun 05 - 05:15 PM

and for those who don't read the article, here is the end of it...


"Iran is trying to develop a nuclear weapon and is developing its vectors to this end. Its ballistic missiles do not only threaten Israel: they can also be turned on Europe," he added.

Iran insists it is not seeking to develop missiles with a longer range than the Shahab-3, and has denied allegations that it is seeking to develop nuclear weapons.

The country says its missiles will only be tipped with conventional warheads.

But many are not convinced: as one Western diplomat in Iran has remarked, "why develop a Rolls-Royce to only deliver a pizza?"

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Jun 05 - 05:46 PM

Unfortunately, in todays political climate , having nuclear weapons seems to be the only way of avoiding attack, especially if you are Islamic or have oil reserves.

Having no weapons at all seems to guarantee invasion,as your country is seen as an easy target.

The only way round this problem is to pretend to have weapons, but that didn't work in the case of the Saddam regime.                American intelligence was just too good....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: robomatic
Date: 01 Jun 05 - 06:38 PM

I think a nuclear Iran is a fact of life at this point in time. But Iran is a vastly different set of circumstances as compared to N. Korea.

The subject came up in the end of season Simpsons episode when Homer wondered where Bart would be sent.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Jun 05 - 09:34 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/06/15/iran.nuclear.reut/index.html

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Jun 05 - 12:58 PM

Forget about Iran and Korea. It's Canada that's next! Why? Because of Canadian beaver pelts. Bush is obsessed with taking over all the beaver in Canada, and he will stop at nothing. He is a madman who MUST be stopped! Enough is enough.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Jun 05 - 01:05 PM

Bush is obsessed with taking over all the beaver in Canada

Too many possibilities for response here, LH. Too many possibilities.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Jun 05 - 01:08 PM

Well, Mr Bush is clearly a megalomaniac with delusions of grandeur. Others have tried to control all the beaver in Canada, and died trying. I seriously doubt that George Bush will succeed in this nefarious plan.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Shanghaiceltic
Date: 16 Jun 05 - 07:28 PM

I thought that was Clinton's perogative, that and Cuban cigars.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Jun 05 - 08:32 PM

Clinton was unquestionably a force to be reckoned with. No doubt about it. But he was so likeable...

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Jun 05 - 10:06 PM

Others have tried to control all the beaver in Canada, and died trying.

With a smile on their faces, no doubt.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Jun 05 - 10:26 PM

LOLOLOLOL!!!!

The perfect response, Carol. Now I can go to bed with a smile on my face. G'night, folks!

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Jun 05 - 03:53 AM

What about the corrupt government in the USA. Lets invade that for a regime change. Holding hostages and torturing them!

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Jun 05 - 07:32 AM

Yes, Washington is the number one place where regime change is needed at the moment.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,Allen
Date: 17 Jun 05 - 03:09 PM

Lichtenstein.

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

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: 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: 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,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 - 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: 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 - 07:23 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 - 07:25 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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.