BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Nickhere
Date: 01 Mar 07 - 10:00 PM

Agreed, LittleHawk.

Teribus - I'm off to bed now (it's well after 2am here and I have to sleep sometime) so I can only give you the briefest of responses.

You say a return to the 1948 boundaries is not going to happen. Of course this raises an obvious question: why not?
We all know the answer I think. Firstly, only western powers like the USA and Britain are going to have any leverage in getting Israel to do anything, and so far they have shown themselves to be spineless hypocrites. As long as the West gives carte blanche to Isrel, of course there won't be any return to 1948 UN-agreed borders.

The second reason is of course, that Israel, during government after government since 1967 has pursued a policy of transplanting its population into colonies in the West Bank seized from Jordan after the latter annexed it first. The West bank was not an orginal part of UN-mandated Israel, it is in effect, land grabbed during war, and as I have only just pointed out a few posts back, Israel is comitting a war crime in colonising it. The land belongs to the Palestinians who lived there in 1967. It is their houses and farms that Israeli colonists are now taking possession of. So if Israel had to withdraw to its 1948 borders, these colonists would either have to leave the land they illegally colonised or accept being part of a Palestinain statelet. Of course there;s not much chance of that happening, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't happen. According to your logic, if you're big and strong and fast enough you can grab what you like and it becomes yours if you can hold on to it. Morality doesn't even come into the frame. Kinda like the 'injuns' I suppose.


As for quoting you correctly, pardon me - I clicked and dragged your line into my text, and missed the word 'Hamas' by mistake. Sorry once again. Now, for the part about Israel never decalring its intention to 'eradicate the stain of etc.,' I'm not so sure about that: I remember seeing such a quote somewhere, though not inexactly those terms. But since I can't lay my hand to it at the moment, I'll give the actual words the benefit of doubt. But do you really need an actual quote? The facts on the ground speak for themselves. In the West Bank Israel is fact driving Palestinians out of their homes, off their farms, destroying their economy etc., etc., Palestinians married to foreigners find their spouses unable to get further permits from the Israelis to stay in the West Bank - effectively forcing the Palestinian partner to leave either the West Bank or their husband / wife. Just about everything Israel can do is being done to get the Palestinians to leave or accept 3rd class citizenship in their own land while their homes and farms all around them are taken over by Jewish Israeli settlers. If Palestinains or lebanese were doing this in Israel, what would you have to say about it? But I'm blue in the face from repeating all this. It seems all thsi violence isn't enough proof for you, you would like someone to say it in an official phrase as well. Whenever did the European colonists of America actually say "we intend to wipe out as many indians as we can and take all their land and shove the few who survive into the poorest parcels of land we can find where they can live as minors unde our regime" (apart from the one who said 'the only good injun is a dead injun)? But isn't that what happened?
Yes, the wall is dammned effective - at breaking up the West Bank into Israeli colonies and fencing Palestinians into the largest open-air prison in the world.

www.theironwall.ps

'Israel offered one peace settlement after another'....hmmmmm. That's not what I've heard. Any 'peace' offered by Israel did no favours to the Palestinians. The Oslo agreement was a swindle on the Palestinians if ever there was one. An ageing, decrepit old man (Arafat) was hooked in on his dream of being the leader of a Palestinian statelet in his lifetime, and so he 'sold his birthright for a mess of pottage' (see the story about Easu and Jacob in the Old Testament for the reference). He got his wish, and the former 'arch-terrorist / Dr.Evil' became the darling of Israeli political society as he turned policeman for them 'controlling his own people' in ways that would make even Shin Bet blush with embarrasment. Small wonder then, that the Palestinians soon saw through this charade and voted for Hamas to represent them.

But like I said, it's late, I have to get to sleep sometime and I've given you enough food for thought. We can come back to it later.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Mar 07 - 09:59 PM

"I'm trying to provide a counterbalance to a way out of balance situation that is morally and legally unjustifiable.

I am NOT trying to say that I support or agree with militant Islamic groups who attack Israel. I do NOT support or agree with them." - Little Hawk.

First paragraph quoted above is laughable.

As for the second, not once has LH critised them, he has always found some half-assed excuse to justify their conduct.

OK LH, a question for you, in the face of the threats and statements made, what would you, as Israel do?

Just to remind you here are some of those threats and statements:

Gamal Abul Nasser - March 8, 1965:
"We shall not enter Palestine with its soil covered in sand. We shall enter it with its soil saturated in blood."

Gamal Abul Nasser, a few months later:
"... the full restoration of the rights of the Palestinian people. In other words, we aim at the destruction of the State of Israel. The immediate aim: perfection of Arab military might. The national aim: the eradication of Israel."

President Abdur Rahman Aref of Iraq, June 4, 1967:
"The existence of Israel is an error which must be rectified. This is our opportunity to wipe out the ignominy which has been with us since 1948. Our goal is clear -- to wipe Israel off the map."

Now who else quite recently voiced their desire that "Israel should be wiped off the map"?

What are the stated long term goals of both Hamas and Hezbollah with regard to the State of Israel?

OK Little Hawk, that is what you have been faced with, that is reality with which you have lived since 1948, what do you regard as your basis for negotiation?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Peace
Date: 01 Mar 07 - 09:33 PM

If that were true, then you would spend as much time talking about the bad stuff done by the various terrorist organizations supported by various Muslim countries as y'all do about Israel's bad stuff. This "I want to balance the record" stuff looks and sounds like bullshit to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Mar 07 - 09:26 PM

Nickhere, you have just articulated precisely why I often criticize Israel. I feel that I am living in a society where the government and media are grossly prejudicial in their favoritism toward Israel and their failure to bring to bear on Israel the same standards of criticism which they would bring to bear on any other nation doing what Israel does. Israel is allowed to get away with actions that would simply not be tolerated if a Muslim nation did them...such as the 2 invasions of Lebanon...such as the unannounced, undeclared building of a large number of atomic weapons...and such as the occuping and steady colonization of lands outside their own borders...and such as sudden pre-emptive attacks on their neighbours' strategic facilities (I am referring to their attack on Iraq's nuclear research facility).

No other nation is allowed to get away with such aggression...except for one: the USA.

That is the double standard I object to. Israel and the USA apparently have carte blanche to attack any nation they want to, any time they want to, just because they want to. In other words...they're completely above the law. NOBODY else is.

That's what I don't agree with, and that's why I criticize the USA and Israel.

I'm trying to provide a counterbalance to a way out of balance situation that is morally and legally unjustifiable.

I am NOT trying to say that I support or agree with militant Islamic groups who attack Israel. I do NOT support or agree with them.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Mar 07 - 09:23 PM

Nickhere,

We have Little Hawk wittering on about a return to the UN stipulated 1948 boundaries - Not going to happen, even the Arabs acknowledge that.

By the bye, Nickhere, If you are going to quote me, quote me correctly - "Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran ultimately want the "stain" of Israel erradicated and washed from Arab Lands."

"It seems the Israelis are currently doing their best to eradicate 'the stain of the Palestinians' from the West Bank" - Well Nickhere, history goes against your assertion. Israel has offered deal after deal - all have been rejected. Tell you what Nickhere, you show me where Israel has ever voiced officially, or unofficially, thyeir intent to "eradicate" anything. I, on the otherhand can give you countless examples of publically declared Arab ill intent towards the State of Israel and her population.

As far as the "Wall" goes - Damned effective isn't it?

As far as UN resolutions go Nickhere, there are a few that pre-date those examples you quote that guarantee the right of Israel's existence. Now in order of precedence once those earlier ones have been adhered to I am totally convinced that Israel would return to the 1967 boundaries - It's not going to happen of course, you know that, I know that, the Israeli's know that and the Palestinians know that.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Nickhere
Date: 01 Mar 07 - 09:09 PM

No Peace, I don't completely agree with you there. Sure, there are human rights abuses in other Middle Eastern countries too. But -

1) the discussion in the media is largely restricted to abuses which occur in those countries unfriendly or unaligned with US interests,e.g Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan. We do not hear so much about human rights abuses perpetrated in e.g Egypt, Turkey or Uzbekistan - all currently US allies, and places where the CIA has flown 'terror suspects' to be tortured, since they can't quite get away with it on US soil. The Arab world is not as stupid or 'backward' as were are all led to believe, and they know about these things.

2) Israel is heavily supported and bankrolled by the West, America and Britain in particular. That makes it a kind of ambassador for the West in the whole region. Not much point in Western countries coming in to lecture the Arabs on human rights and democracy if they can see our hypocrisy in turning a blind eye to what goes on in Palestine. You must also bear in mind that Israel, while having the smallest population and being one of the smallest countries in the region, has one of the biggest and best equipped armies. This army is frequently used to harass and shoot Palestinians (shooting ducks in a barrel) to which the West turns a blind eye. Arab countries are not stupid, and they see all this. They see Condi say 'not yet, not yet' about a ceasefire while Lebanon is being slowly flattened. It is this gross hypocrisy which is so counter-productive and incesnses Arabs, making them suspicious (with good cause) of any western intervention in the region. It also is counter productive in that our double standards, making them reluctant to accept direction from us on how to run their societies. Would you accept being lectured on your drinking by a guy who shoots up every evening? A more fair, honest and just approach to the Palestinians would produce great peace dividends, not just in Palestine, but across the whole Arab world. That, by definition, will involve some heavy censure of Israel as it stands, a step no politican has been really braveenough to take so far.

While the Arab world is routinely demonised in the Western media - which delivers all kinds of skewed stories in skewed langauge to the public - it is virtually impossible to get any criticism of Israel past the net. If it weren't for forums like this and a few brave journalists, no criticsim of Israel would probably be heard at all. Far from being counter-productive as you claim, threads like this bring some balance to an otherwise badly skewed topic. It is essential if we are to move towards a just and peaceful solution in the Middle East, currently impossible given the level of bias and misinformation in most of our media. Posts like mine are only 'counter-productive' to current Israeli policy, which if it were healthy, would be open to some constructive criticism.

And I might add, I don't remember you ever criticising Israel's human rights record, surely 'not singling out Israel as the biggest bad guy in the region' doesn't equate with maintaining a total silence on their defects? But, my apologies in advance if I wrong you in saying that, as I haven't read all your posts to mudcat obviously, and I'm willing to stand corrected.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Peace
Date: 01 Mar 07 - 08:10 PM

Until such time as people are willing to talk about the 'human rights abuses' of Israel AND its surrounding neighbours, there really isn't much to talk about, Nickhere. That's been a problem here as well as other sites. And singling out Israel as the BIGGEST bad guy become counter productive real fast. Your post is an example of that.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Nickhere
Date: 01 Mar 07 - 08:05 PM

Sure thing, Dinavan. Unfortunately many Zionists seem to believe that two wrongs make a right. Since Jews were persecuted by the Nazis, many Zionists seem to think that gives them the right to treat the Palestinians etc., in a similar way. Ok, so not the gas chambers etc., but remember that Jews were subject to hundreds of petty restrictions and harassments by the Third Reich long before the Nazis got as far as gas chambers. Palestinians suffer many similar harassments today - having to have different colour licence plates on the cars, permits to go anywhere, not allowed to go some places at all: places that were often their homes until a short time ago, their property seized, attacks on the person by Israeli Jewish colonists and the Israeli army, death squads etc., etc.,

You'd think suffering such persecution themselves would make people more sensitive to the trauma of others, but the reverse seems to be the case with many zionists. All criticism of Israeli policy is deflected by the smokescreen of accusations of being a nazi / fascist. A lot of people also make the mistake of assuming that being Jewish automatically means being zionist. This is not the case, and there are many Jews around the world uneasy about, or critical of the Israeli government and its policies. There are Jews within Israel who conduct a far more robust debate about the rights and wrongs of their state than is often permitted outside of it. "Haaretz" is an excellent Israeli paper which gives a lot of space to these discussions.

Haaretz

What is interesting is the regularity with which the Palestine / Israel debate (if you want to call it that) crops up on this and other forums, reagrdless of the original thread topic (in this case Iran / N.Korea) - I think it demonstrates people's conscious or unconscious awareness of the critical importance of the Israel - Palestine question and its centrality in finding a peaceful solution to many of the world's current problems. If an amicable and accepatble solution (to both sides, and therein lies the difficulty) were to be found to this question, many of the other turbulences in the region - and thus the rest of the world, thanks to the ripple effect - would subside. This is one of the reasons the topic interests me so much, apart from a sense of indignation at injustice and human rights abuses.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Mar 07 - 04:14 PM

I've seen the terrible poverty in Cuba. I've seen it also in Mexico and Trinidad. It exists throughout Latin America. The reason Cuba's dire poverty is quoted by conservatives as a proof that Cuba is "bad" while poverty elsewhere in corporate-run Latin America is not even mentioned or spoken of in the same breath, is this: Cuba did not cooperate with grand corporate policy. The other countries did.

Period.

Meanwhile, Cuba has far less crime than those other countries, and far better educational systems for all its citizens and free medical care for all as well.

That's why I like Cuba. They stood up and fought for their rights, just like the American revolutionaries did back in 1776. And they won. So far.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 01 Mar 07 - 04:11 PM

" I quite understand the difference between being opposed to the policies of the government of a state and its supporters when they are in flagrant breach of human rights, and being biased against a whole race of people."

I totally agree with you on that. Unfortunately, there are many who believe that you cannot criticize the Israeli government or the evolution of Zionism. At one time, the U.N. actually equated Zionism with racism. That has changed, however. Here's the latest:

http://www.nysun.com/article/49080

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: autolycus
Date: 01 Mar 07 - 03:32 PM

Cuba,not to mention Iran and North Korea, are certainly taking their time hitting us with their bats. Eh,beardedbruce?

   I wonder if there's any correspondence between the arguing here and those at top diplomatic and political levels.

   I mean,can we expect them to reach humane accords when we have difficulty while not having weapons,power or vast wealth.





      Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Nickhere
Date: 01 Mar 07 - 03:23 PM

Teribus: " Hezbollah and Iran ultimately want the "stain" of Israel erradicated and washed from Arab Lands"

Mmmm. It seems the Israelis are currently doing their best to eradicate 'the stain of the Palestinians' from the West Bank, seize their homes and farms and set themselves up in colonies there having displaced the natives. They've even gone as far as building a wall deep into the West Bank in order to mark out their newly acquired land. They build roads all through this annexed country which Palestinians are not allowed to use in any way. Now when the Palestinians try and resist all this disposession, they are called 'terrorists'. In doing so the Israelis have completely ignored two UN security council resolutions: 242 and 338, both of which insist that Israel must withdraw from Arab land seized during the 1967 war, and that continued occupation of that land and transferral of its civilian population into that land, constitues a war crime. Israel would also be currently sitting on a large chunk of southern Lebanon if Hizbullah hadn't stopped them in their tracks. Once again, the Israeli invasion is known as a 'security operation' while the Hizbullah attempt to stop it is known as 'terrorism'. Normally in war, the first casualty they say, is the truth, but in this so-called war on terror, the first casulaty has been the English language. The Israelis are especially adept at dressing their murder, vandalism (as when they bulldoze Palestinian farms and villages) and racism in euphemistic terms, but the truth will always out.

Once again, I'm not saying Iranian, Syrian etc., society is perfect, but let's call a spade a spade here.

This link gives an interesting snippet of life in the West Bank - these were a British film crew, can you imagine what Palestinians have to put up with? Incidentally, I don't agree with many of the comments posted below the film clip - quite a few display a frightening and disturbing level of anti-semitism (in spite of what you pro-Israeli apologists believe, I quite understand the difference between being opposed to the policies of the government of a state and its supporters when they are in flagrant breach of human rights, and being biased against a whole race of people).

British film crew threatened

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Nickhere
Date: 01 Mar 07 - 02:53 PM

"Only a Canadian would think that Cuba has a high quality of life.   When the NBA played some exhibition games over there, the universal remarks from players were about proverty and gruesome conditions.   This from people who for the most part grew up in the low income areas, and gettos in the USA. The NBA players couldn't believe how bad the poverty was in Cuba compared to USA"


Nothing to do with a ridiculous set of US sanctions and boycotts over the last 40 years on Cuba, of course. There might have been some reason for them back during the Bay of Pigs era, but the Cold War is over and the rest of the world has moved on, excpet the USA of course, and Cuba, because the USA won't let it. What threat does Fidel pose to the USA now? Answer, in case you didn't know = none (except that lifting sanctions might hurt the ex-pat Miami Cuban vote of any politician who was brave enough to try reconciliation). I guess the other main reason why the sanctions remain in place is that the USA NEEDS Cuba to be poor, to be a disaster. If it was otherwise, it might prove that socialism can sometimes work and that naked unbridled capitalism isn't the only way forward.

[BTW I'm not saying Cuba isn't tightly controlled by an ageing autocrat, but it would be a lot better off if the sanctions were lifted. If anyone out there really professes to be concerned about Cuba and its poor, you might start by lobbying your politicians to lift the sanctions]

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Mar 07 - 02:04 PM

Everything in politics, life, and existence as we know it is only a temporary settlement. A temporary settlement is far preferable to no settlement at all.

Those who scoff at "temporary settlements" are those who in their hearts want no settlement. Instead, they want nothing less than total victory...or perhaps they just want to keep fighting forever and ever, because it satisfies some emotional need.

This, unfortunately, is a failing of the more extreme zealots on both sides of the Arab/Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

But...it's great for keeping up arms sales! ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 01 Mar 07 - 01:00 PM

Feb. 27, Guardian Unlimited -

"Hamas has pledged to end missile attacks and violence against Israel, Russia's foreign minister said Tuesday, but the radical Palestinian group's spiritual leader struck a less conciliatory note, saying it was not ready to recognize Israel."

Its a start. Lets hope there will be another step, and another and another.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Mar 07 - 10:50 AM

I believe that for a starter as a negotiating ploy the Palestinian Authority has used the pre-Six Day War Borders (1967).

This, however, is only as a temporary settlement, Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran ultimately want the "stain" of Israel erradicated and washed from Arab Lands.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Peace
Date: 28 Feb 07 - 11:41 PM

"Israel officially became a sovereign nation in 1948, was recognized as such by the U.N., and I believe that all sides should recognize those borders, and stick to them."

On the 5th of Iyar, 5708, Israel declared itself a State. They were immediately invaded by Iraq, Syria, Transjordan, Lebanon and Egypt. Dream on, LH, dream on. The shit has been happening again and again ever since.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Feb 07 - 11:32 PM

Pssshhhhh! (rolling my eyes) It doesn't flippin' MATTER who refused what in 1948. I am not into settling old grudges here, Bearded Bruce, or proving who is nastier than whom, I'm into respecting the originally established borders of sovereign nations. Israel officially became a sovereign nation in 1948, was recognized as such by the U.N., and I believe that all sides should recognize those borders, and stick to them.

To do otherwise, to allow anyone to go past those original borders and sieze land, is to encourage whoever happens to be stronger at any given time in history to take land that isn't his by force. And you notice that's what they've all been trying to do ever since?

That cannot be allowed as an acceptable principle if you want enduring peace between nations...or the strong nations will always use that principle to beat up on the weak ones.

It's not okay when Saddam does it. It's not okay when Germany does it. Neither is it okay when Israel or China or anyone else does it. I don't care what their excuse is for doing it, either.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Feb 07 - 08:50 PM

Hate to bring up the dreaded "Saudi Proposal" but seems that the framework within it will one day look very much like the settlement of the current fiasco...

The basis would have provided Isreal with "security" while also providing some mechanisms for dealing with the secritarian feuds if only becuase of it's regionalistic approcah...

Too bad that Bush thought he needed yet another shiney wars to keep his redneck base happy and thus... his redneck administration in power...

But lets get real here... Yeah, Bush would love to have yet another stupid shiney war to keep the NASCAR dads happy but guess what... Even the NASCAR dads ain't impressed with new and shiney wars any more... I'll tell ya what, folks... When you can't ven get the NASCAR dads to support a new and shiney war then you hav some serious problems and...

...Bush has some serious problems but...

...it is encouragin' that Bush has finally seen that NASCAR dads have lost their appitite for war and has now changed course an' looks as if he's now willin' (it's about time...) to try some diplomacy in agreein' to meet with the Iranians and the Syrians...

Hey, it beats the SOS, thank you...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 28 Feb 07 - 08:33 PM

Because the Arabs refused them in 1948...

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Feb 07 - 07:22 PM

Why not the 1948 ones?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 28 Feb 07 - 06:34 PM

"(within the 1948 borders), "


Why the 1948 ones? Why not the 1923 ones, or the 1967 ones???

Or even ones to be negotiated by TWO parties acting IN GOOD FAITH?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Feb 07 - 05:25 PM

Well, we certainly agree on the matter of those settlements, Dickey. I would like to see the Israelis safe to live and prosper on their own land (within the 1948 borders), and their Muslim neighbours equally safe to live on theirs (in the other areas around there). This would require some more goodwill and cooperation on both sides, obviously.

I would also like to see both sides mutually disarm and stand down.

But then too, I'd like to go out with Winona Ryder and I'd love to visit Mars... (grin) Let's face it, I'm a dreamer.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 28 Feb 07 - 01:46 PM

Thats right. At present Britain and the U.S. do not seem to have contracts with Iraq. What do you think this war is all about? Its the private sector in the U.S. and Britain that want contracts to tap the reserves.

Doesn't look like thats gonna happen either.

If you look at Iraqi's new 'oil deal', the Kurds seem to come out on top. It paves the way for a separate Kurdistan. If that happens, we will probably see an Iranian backed 'Shiastan' as well. Iraq as we know it today, will no longer exist and the U.S. will find that the Kurds are not their friends, after all and Turkey will be dragged into this whole mess.

Thank Bush for this fiasco.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 28 Feb 07 - 12:56 PM

LH:

The only expansionisim I see is those damned settlements. Seems to me that Bush or Congress could tell them no settlements or no support and solve that problem real quick. But then that might be called Imperialisim. I call it playing hardball.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Feb 07 - 10:26 AM

I would like to point out that for me (and hopefully for some other people as well) the word "Jew" does not equate to the word "Israeli". They are not synonyms. One can most definitely be a Jew and not be an Israeli. One can be an Israeli and not be a Jew. One can be a Jew or an Israeli and not be a Zionist. My concern is with aggressively expansionist Israeli political and military policies, not with Jews. There are Jews and Israelis who, like me, disagree with a number of those expansionist Israeli political and military policies.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Feb 07 - 10:20 AM

Everyone blames whomever they fear, do they not?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Peace
Date: 28 Feb 07 - 10:10 AM

I wonder if Iran will blame the Jews also.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Feb 07 - 09:46 AM

Looks more and more to me like Iran is next. There has been a steadily escalating media campaign to convince Americans that there must be some pressing reason to attack Iran. It's kind of like being in Nazi Germany in 1939-41 and listening to the bizarre rhetoric issuing from the mouths of Herr Goebbels and Herr Hitler as Germany prepares once again with saddened but firm resolve to "take up the burden" and defend decent Germans and save western civilization from some dire threat somewhere....la de da....

I wonder if we will get through Spring without the attack on Iran? Only time will tell. I wonder if it will involve the use of tactical nuclear weapons by the USA? Only time will tell that as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Feb 07 - 12:46 AM

"You know as well as I do that the average Iraqi citizen will not benefit from contracts with the U.S. and Britain." - dianavan, 27 Feb 07 - 10:21 PM.

What contracts with the U.S. and Britain? At present there are none, so the "average Iraqi citizen is not benefiting from contracts with whom?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 11:19 PM

Sounds like the most probable game plan to me...

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 11:11 PM

As it stands now a large percentage of Iraqs' oil is being stolen & sold imdependantly on the world market. It's Iran's oil that the US Oil Industry has their eye on. And the way to Iran is through Iraq. Syria will fall after that.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 10:52 PM

It's about access to and control of oil. It was also about a former key employee of the $ySSTem (Saddam Hussein) who became disobedient. He tried to go into business for himself. Such disobedience is not tolerated by either the Mafia OR the Coporatocracy. The disobedient and defiant are crushed ruthlessly.

Further to that it's about securing bases in the center of the Middle East which provide good staging points for hypothetical future attacks on other defiant or disobedient people...such as the Iranians, the Syrians, and possibly the Saudis (at some point, if things change).

None of this has anything to do with protecting Americans, but it does have something to do with protecting their overseas oil sources.

If the USA wasn't so tied down right now in the Middle East, you'd see some very peculiar things happening in regards to Venezuela right now too. Again, because Chavez is steering an independent course. He is disobedient and defiant towards to Coporatocracy. That usually leads to an early and violent death for popular leaders in Latin America. Almost always, in fact.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 10:21 PM

"So don't ever let me hear you spout about the the US and Iraqi oil again..." - teribus

I'm not your child, teribus, and you don't get to demand silence or obedience from me.

Untapped Iraqi oil is worth nothing to the Iraqis or anyone else. Its only when its extracted and moved that it is worth anything. It is the private sector that will reap the profit unless the Iraqi people are able to develop their own means of extraction and transportation.

You know as well as I do that the average Iraqi citizen will not benefit from contracts with the U.S. and Britain.

Thats why this invasion has never been about freedom. Its only about oil and it doesn't seem to matter to you how many people die as a result.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 08:28 PM

dianavan - PM
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 01:02 PM

"Teribus thinks he knows more about the Iraqi economy than Heather Stewart! Don't be so pompous, teri. Thats a good article and explains clearly what I was trying to say earlier." - dianavan, 27 Feb 07 - 01:02 PM

Don't know anything about the Iraqi economy but I have probably forgotten more about the international oil industry than Heather Stewart will ever know, having worked in it for the last thirty-five years.

"The law, which is being discussed by the Iraqi cabinet before being put to the parliament, says the untapped oil would remain state-owned but that contracts would be drawn up giving private sector firms the exclusive right to extract it."

So that is what you say dianavan, so where is all this crap that you have been spouting about the "evil-old-US of A" stealing Iraq's Oil. I take it that now you retract all such stupid statements. As you have correctly said, and nay I will go even further, ALL OIL, GAS AND WHATEVER OTHER NATURAL RESOURSES lie beneath the sovereign territory of IRAQ BELONGS TO IRAQ and her people. ALWAYS HAS, ALWAYS WILL - why dianavan because you can't move it, simple fact of life. So don't ever let me hear you spout about the the US and Iraqi oil again - it's a non-starter.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 01:02 PM

Teribus thinks he knows more about the Iraqi economy than Heather Stewart! Don't be so pompous, teri. Thats a good article and explains clearly what I was trying to say earlier.

"The law, which is being discussed by the Iraqi cabinet before being put to the parliament, says the untapped oil would remain state-owned but that contracts would be drawn up giving private sector firms the exclusive right to extract it."

If you don't agree, then tell us why.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 12:01 PM

In a system that is based primarily on securing the largest profit, Teribus, you don't need a few evil geniuses at the top to cause things to get out of hand. You don't need a deliberate conspiracy of a few evil men. All you need is plently of normal, fallible, imperfect human beings who are subject to the usual temptations that most of us are subject to. What follows simply happens naturally once you have created institutions such as corporations which can base themselves wherever they please and move their money around from one country to another with ease.

It's a recipe for trouble. We've seen before what expansionist systems can do. Pretty much the entire Mediterranean region was stripped of most of its forests over a period of about 1,000 years by the Romans, the Greeks, the Carthaginians, and the other great military powers of the time. They did it mainly because they wanted the wood to build their navies (and secondarily for many other purposes). This resulted in great and irrepairable damage to the ecology of areas all around the rim of the Med, specially in the Middle East and North Africa. Where there were forests there are now deserts. There was no forethought involved in that process, there was only an immediate objective being sought: naval supremacy and "success".

Now we have a $ySStem that has convinced itself that "success" means an economy which keeps expanding and makes larger sales of consumer goods every year than it did the previous year. Everything in the business world is geared to that notion. I mean, hell, I run a business...and of course, like anyone else in business I hope to increase my sales this year....but I'm not rich. I'm just getting by. If I was rich enough to stop playing the game right now, I would. I'd do something else instead, believe me. I am not in love with the game of business, but some people are.

Now the corporate philosophy would be fine IF...and only if...there was simply an unlimited amount of fresh land, water, and other resources out there to exploit forever and ever.

There isn't. That is the problem.

Since our governments are themselves hostage to this very unrealistic philosophy of endless economic expansion, I foresee great trouble ahead.

Socialist and Communist systems are also guilty of the same shortsighted philosophy, by the way, because they too always want to be bigger and better in every way as every year goes by. They are equally ambitious, and just as likely to cause great environmental damage, as has already been dramatically demonstrated in Russia and elsewhere.

To get back to corporations...The real problem with corporations, as far as I can see, is that it's way too easy for them to (1) control the political agenda through massive lobbying and funding of parties and (2) to evade responsibility through the fact that they are multi-national in nature, and can easily move their money and activities from one nation to another.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 08:44 AM

Hilarious Carrots, I would suggest that Heather Stewart take some time-out and learn something about what she is reporting on. She obviously hasn't got a clue at the moment.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 08:29 AM

Try this.
A quick glance at your browser's address window would have revealed the extra 'l' at the end.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 07:45 AM

Mark you Carrots, a link that worked would be of some asistance.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 07:44 AM

"Terry, what would the musings of a petrol pump attendant be on this report" - Captain Ginger, 27 Feb 07 - 04:09 AM.

No idea Carrots, I suggest that you ask one.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 04:09 AM

Terry, what would the musings of a petrol pump attendant be on this report, which appears to claim that the Iraqi government is under pressure from Britain and the US to pass a law which would hand long-term control of Iraq's energy assets to foreign multinationals?
That's not what you said, is it?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 02:29 AM

"Wolfowitz will loan Iraq the money (from the World Bank) so that Iraq can pay U.S. companies to extract the oil from their vast reserves so that Iraq can sell it to pay back the World Bank."

The only problem with that little scenario Dianavan is that there are no major American Oil Companies involved in oil exploration or production in Iraq. There are no American Companies involved in field operation in Iraq.

"Private corporate industry", is a bit of a misnomer. More usual are the terms "Private Industry" and "Corporate Industry". Nowadays, if of any size to be significant, both involve shareholders. Those shareholders tend to be insurance companies, pension funds, unions. The idea of these being controlled by a few evil men is strictly for comic books and second rate movies.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 01:28 AM

It will probably go something like this:

Wolfowitz will loan Iraq the money (from the World Bank) so that Iraq can pay U.S. companies to extract the oil from their vast reserves so that Iraq can sell it to pay back the World Bank.

Of course its all very legitimate and cost how many lives?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: TIA
Date: 26 Feb 07 - 10:58 PM

The oil was supposed to pay for the reconstruction. Remember? (Wolfowitz) So, was Russia planning to do the reconstruction?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Feb 07 - 10:52 PM

I don't know the specific details about the oil industry, so I'm in no position to comment on that. I do know, however, that USA civilian contractors were and are the recipients of huge and lucrative construction and supply projects in Iraq...that is, rebuilding wrecked infrastructure from the war, building new military bases for American troops, supplying all kinds of stuff (food, uniforms, drugs, guns, hummers, helicopters, whatever) to support the American forces, etc...

Private corporate industry always stands to make a fortune in a situation like that...regardless of whether the original idea was a good idea in any other sense or not...regardless of whether or not it is a military and social disaster. (which it is in this case)

Why should they care? As long as they snag some lucrative contracts in the process and get paid well by the USA government and military, they are winning the corporate game. And to a corporation, that's all that really matters. The bottom line.

At the end of the day more people have died, more stuff has been destroyed and wasted, more of the world community has lost confidence in the USA, more debt has been accumulated by the US government, and the corporations are a lot richer. They can't lose under this $ySStem...because their money controls the decision-making process in Washington and in most other places (like Ottawa or Whitehall, for example). It's a self-feeding, self-aggrandizing, incestous loop, like a snake eating its own tail.

It has nothing to do with democracy, nothing to do with protecting American lives, and nothing to do with helping Iraqis. It has little to do with fighting terrorism either, because one of its main tenets is to sponsor, inspire, and carry out terrorism. Terror is good for business.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Feb 07 - 08:24 PM

Hey, just in from the BBC, especially for dianavan and Ron Davies:

"Iraq Cabinet Approves New Oil Law

The new law was approved by the cabinet after Kurdish groups backed the proposals over the weekend.

"This law has been based on our national interest," Mr Maliki said.

"It will encourage the bringing together of all component parts of the Iraqi people," he told a news conference.

Correspondents say the drawn-out process of passing an oil law has been a symbol of the struggle of Iraq's ethnic groups to work together to build a stable, independent nation.

Under the terms of the deal oil revenues would be split among Iraq's 18 provinces based on population levels.

That has been seen as a concession to Sunni Muslims in the centre of Iraq, where there are few oil reserves.

The draft law also lays out method for international companies to invest in Iraq's oil industry, reports say.

Foreign investors have stayed away from Iraq during the past few years of violence and uncertainty."

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Feb 07 - 08:16 PM

Interesting.

"Yes, the oil is sold on the world market but the money is made by whoever controls the exploration, pipelines and the rest of the infrastructure needed to extract and move the oil to market.

Who would have a vested in interest in that?" - dianavan - 26 Feb 07 - 03:19 PM

By your own definition dianavan the following:

West Qurna Phase 2 (Lukoil - Russian);
Majnoon (Total - French);
Bin Umar (Zarubezhneft - Russian);
Nasiriya (Eni - Italian, Repsol - Spanish);
Halfaya (BHP - Australian, South Korean consortium, CNPC - Chinese, Agip - Italian);
Ratawi (Shell - Netherlands);
Tuba (ONGC - Indian, Sonatrach - BVI);
Suba-Luhais (Slavneft - Russian);
Gharaf (TPAO - Turkish, Japex - Japan);
Al-Ahdab (CNPC - Chinese);
Amara (PetroVietnam);
Western Desert (ONGC - Indian, Pertamina - Indonesia, Stroitransgaz - Russian, Tatneft - Russian);
Tawke 1 (DNO a.s. - Norwegian).

ALL pipelines and transportation systems in Iraq are owned by the Iraq National Oil Company, they always have been.

Now where are all those big bad American Oil Companies dianavan? See who the main player is d? - RUSSIA.

The US imports approximately 10 million barrels of oil per day, it buys less than 500,000 barrels per day from Iraq of the 2 million odd barrels per day that Iraq produces. One would have thought that if this "great adventure" was specifically engineered to "steal" Iraq's oil, they would pay for less and "steal" lots more. No doubt that there is an explanation that dianavan, or Little Hawk can come up with.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: autolycus
Date: 26 Feb 07 - 05:51 PM

BB,and IIIII repeat there is no immediate threat from anyone comparable to your rush to a smashed skull,that is,there is no threat due to happen in the next few seconds (or even minutes. Or hours. Or days. Or weeks. Or months.)

   So there's plenty of time to mull on the part we're playing in the situation, studying the causes of the prob. etc. etc.;the stuff of my response to your challenge.

   Some the time you've spent over the last few days and weeks (?) on this thread could have been spent considering my response to your original 'what do you do when threatened' line of argument. You still could.






       Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Feb 07 - 03:19 PM

Ha! No the "US" is not making a profit (if you mean the nation, the country, the people, the government). Hardly! The private contractors are making a profit. As always. People like Bechtel, Halliburton, Brown & Root, and the oil companies. THEY are making a profit. Those are the joys of privatization. Somebody else dies, somebody else pays for it, somebody else suffers, your country goes deeply into debt, your private coporations (which really control your country) get rich and have no responsibility for the debts and move their money wherever they want to around the world.

That's what it's all about.

Your government is just a helpless corporate tool, BB. You betcha it's costing your government money!!! Billions and billions. And you know where that money comes from? Out of the pockets of ordinary American taxpayers.