BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Feb 07 - 08:15 PM

extrapolate the kill rate if the US stays in Iraq for 30 years- It still would be less than the death rate due to Canadian asbestos.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Feb 07 - 08:27 PM

Are you quite sure? ;-) I think the USA has killed many more people. Besides, the USA controls Canada. Don't forget that. It's a fact. Canada is controlled by American corporate funding and there is not a thing that Canadian voters can do about it, I assure you.

If we, as a country, really tried to do something about it...the same thing would happen to us that happens to other people in similar circumstances where the Empire rules through its financial carrot and stick routine. Our economy would be gutted. Our political leaders would be brought down by one means or another, including assassination if necessary...and they would be replaced by loyal corporate servants of the Empire. Our medicare system would be privatized and would cease effectively to exist from that point on. Our poor would grow poorer. Our middle class would shrink.

The reason these things don't happen (much) is because we are basically compliant with Empire policy about 98% of the time, and that's good enough for the controllers. They indulge us as long as we cooperate with them.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Feb 07 - 07:46 AM

Little Hawk, your post of 09 Feb 07 - 07:13 PM has got to be the greatest example of historically incorrect, emotion-based twaddle I have ever heard you come out with. Complete and utter crap.

It is however noted that your anti-empire rants never include those Empires of the Left. While it may be true that the meddling of the US and western democracies cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands since the end of the Second World War, the meddling undertaken by the USSR, China and the puppet regimes they set up in their satellite States caused the deaths of millions. But you will never hear Little Hawk come out against that in the same way that he goes after the US and, how did he put it again, "the bloody British Empire".

The general concensus of historians the world over is that the influences on the general world situation on balance have been enhanced by the efforts, activities and developement introduced by the UK and the USA.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 10 Feb 07 - 03:48 PM

"The general concensus of historians the world over is that the influences on the general world situation on balance have been enhanced by the efforts, activities and developement introduced by the UK and the USA."

Actually, teribus, I don't think the Muslim world actually wants the type of enhancement that the U.S. and Britain have to offer. In fact, your statement says it all.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Feb 07 - 04:52 PM

I agree with you 100% about the USSR and China's nefarious activities in that regard, Teribus. ;-)

However, when I am myself LIVING in a society where 999 out of 1,000 people already KNOW about the nefarious activities of the USSR and China, and take it for granted, yet at least 625 of them are apparently blissfully unaware of the nefarious activities of the Empire they themselves live in and tacitly support.....! I feel obliged to point out the latter inconsistency in their thinking and their powers of observation.

Why beat an already dead horse? That's what I would be doing if I raved on about the evil activities of the USSR and China, or of Osama Bin Laden and the Wahabi sect, or of the Iranian mullahs, while living in the West. I mean....DUH!!!!! Did I not know those guys do bad things already???? Doesn't everyone I know, know it? Will it help for me to be one more voice in a gigantic mob of sheep who point it out daily, thus echoing their mass media obediently, like good, loyal little people in Orwell's 1984?

It beats me why this hasn't occurred to you, frankly... ;-) But I guess it would interfere with your usual train of thought, and you'd have to confront the possibility that I'm not entirely stupid or entirely wrong. I think it's more important to expose the evil in one's own residence than the evil in someone else's who is far, far away. MUCH more important. It is the evil in your own residence that blinds and enslaves you. Foreign evils are very, very easy to spot.

Anyway, print out this whole post and stick it on your fridge so you don't ever again forget that I agree with you about the nasty empire-building activities and misdeeds of the Soviets and Red China.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Feb 07 - 03:46 PM

"Actually, teribus, I don't think the Muslim world actually wants the type of enhancement that the U.S. and Britain have to offer."

No, of course they don't dianavan, they want their followers ignorant and subserviant, i.e. fully prepared to believe absolutely whatever line of complete and utter bullshit that they deem compelled to peddle at any given moment for their own purposes. Normally associated with ends that are utterly corrupt and self serving - Example - Tosser Arafat - Leader - never exhibited any type of leadership in his entire life - He amassed a personal fortune of hundreds of millions of dollars stolen from the Palestinian people.

That is why the late King of Jordan's brother stated, quite correctly, that if you went to the market in any arab city and set up two booths, one enlisting for Jihad against the USA and the other handing out American visas, for every one person in the former line you would see one thousand in the latter.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Feb 07 - 04:05 PM

The USA wants its people ignorant and subservient too, for much the same reasons. So they will believe the unbelievable, and follow orders. ;-) Every dominating and oppressive system wants its people that way. The same was true of the Soviets, and is true of Red China.

In the case of the USA, this is achieved through a barrage of political propaganda, news that misleads and disinforms, and mass marketing of goods and entertainment.

Who is MORE ignorant? Well, that would be a tough, tough competition at this point.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Feb 07 - 01:35 AM

Little Hawk - 11 Feb 07 - 04:05 PM

"The USA wants its people ignorant and subservient too"

Utterly ridiculous!!

I suppose that is why in the US you are free to say whatever you want, read whatever you chose, educate yourself in whatever way you chose, worship in whatever way you chose, free to protest whatever you want.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 12 Feb 07 - 02:19 AM

"...ignorant and subserviant?"

Actually, teribus, just because your govt. is Muslim doesn't mean you are ignorant and subservient. Saudi Arabia also has a baathist regime. Are you saying they are ignorant and subservient? What about the people of other Muslim countries? What about Jordan? Ever look at their educational system?   

Yes, we may have more freedom but don't think our present govts. wouldn't rob us of those freedoms if they had a chance.

...and when it comes to self-serving and corrupt, I don't think Western governments have anything to brag about. Its laughable to think that we are free because of Bush, Cheney or Blair.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Feb 07 - 04:46 AM

"...but don't think our present govts. wouldn't rob us of those freedoms if they had a chance."

Now why on earth would they do that dianavan? What purpose would that serve?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Feb 07 - 09:50 AM

You don't have to jail people if they consent to being their own mental jailors. You can easily keep them ignorant by simply feeding them a lot of false information. Americans (in a general sense) are famous all around the world for their ignorance of what the world is like outside their own borders.

The so-called "free press" in North America is mostly owned by a few conglomerates, major corporations, and they control the viewpoints expressed in 98% of what goes out in print. This results in a population that is spoon fed nonsense from the day they are born till the day they die, and they believe it, of course.

There are numerous societies which are freer and more open-minded than the USA is right now. Iran is not one of them, needless to say. ;-) But I doubt that Iranians are stupid, and I think you might find a good many of them more aware of certain realities than you think. Third World people are often more realistic about what's going on internationally than their spoon-fed, fat, coddled, stupefied counterparts in North America are. Why? Because they deal with the more unpleasant consequences of what's going on directly, rather than spending their evenings watching "Survivor" and speculating about the death of Anna Nicole Smith.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Feb 07 - 10:01 AM

In any case, Teribus, EVERY large modern society wants its people ignorant (in a very selective sense) AND subservient. Specially the latter. Our entire upbringing, our schools, our job training, our military training, our social training...every bit of it is calculated precisely for that purpose: to make people subservient. To make them conform. To make them follow orders. And every child knows this deep in his heart and bitterly resents it.

It's not just a problem in North America, it's a problem everywhere.

Have you never looked within in your entire life? I wonder sometimes.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 12 Feb 07 - 10:04 AM

Tell that to a school teacher.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Feb 07 - 10:13 AM

I feel sorry for school teachers, Dickey, because they're mostly among the most decent, hard-working, and well-intentioned people in society. Do you know how desperately frustrated many of them are with the way the $ySStem forces them to teach children? I do. I talk to them about it. They're my friends. Teachers are also victims of the same system that victimizes each succeeding generation of children.

Every human being wants desperately to be FREE. What primarily stands in his or her way is the hierarchical structure of the organized society around him/her. Its purposes are not to spread freedom, but to control. Mind control, thought control, behaviour control, material control.

Every child knows this intimately. By the time people reach young adulthood, most of them have given in and joined the ranks of the few controllers and the many slaves. They comfort themselves to some extent with their material goods, their food, their drink, their drugs, their sex, and their entertainment....but how many are truly happy and free? Very, very few. Less than 1/2 of one per cent, in my opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Feb 07 - 11:24 AM

"Our entire upbringing, our schools, our job training, our military training, our social training...every bit of it is calculated precisely for that purpose: to make people subservient. To make them conform. To make them follow orders."

Complete and utter crap when considering either the UK/USA/Canada/Australia. Generalisations are odious but taking any of those nations and trying to pin an adjective to collectively describe the population of any one - "subservient" would not feature in my top 100 adjectives.

Hundreds of years ago, the Chinese invented gunpowder, long before the wicked west got hold of it. The Chinese made this invention into a means of entertaining their Emperor (Fireworks), the West took it and put mankind on the Moon - Again that does not denote subservience.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Feb 07 - 07:34 PM

You may be the living proof, Teribus, that the unexamined life is not worth living. As I suspected, it seems that you have never looked within yourself or within other human beings in your entire existence. Instead, your gaze is fixed upon the phenomena of the outer world. If it can't be touched or measured, it doesn't exist for you.

Too bad. You flunk philosophy and psychology 101. You flunk spirituality, kindergarten level. You seem to have the soul of a pipe wrench.

The Anglo nations are fine. I enjoy living in one of them. But they are not the apotheosis of human culture and accomplishment on this planet. (nor is any other specific culture...they all have some strengths and weaknesses)

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Alba
Date: 12 Feb 07 - 07:46 PM

Little Hawk regarding your 10.13am post to this Thread ..
applause!

Respectfully
Jude

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Feb 07 - 07:54 PM

Thanks, Jude.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 04:35 AM

A breakthrough is currently being reported by the BBC, with a deal for fuel.

LH:
"The Anglo nations are fine. I enjoy living in one of them. But they are not the apotheosis of human culture and accomplishment on this planet."

You specifically targeted the "Anglo Nations" in your previous posts. And while they may not be the "apotheosis of human culture and accomplishment" they have gone a damn sight further down the road in improving the lot of mankind than most.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Alba
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 07:26 AM

You specifically targeted the "Anglo Nations" in your previous posts. And while they may not be the "apotheosis of human culture and accomplishment" they have gone a damn sight further down the road in improving the lot of mankind than most.

I find that statement to be sadly lacking in substance and historical fact.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 10:06 AM

Really Alba? Historically which field of human endeavour would you like to discuss? Human Rights? Medicine? International Law? Science?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Amos
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 10:21 AM

JAKARTA, Indonesia - A top U.S. general said Tuesday there was no evidence the Iranian government was supplying Iraqi insurgents with highly lethal roadside bombs, apparently contradicting claims by other U.S. military and administration officials.

Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said U.S. forces hunting down militant networks that produced roadside bombs had arrested Iranians and that some of the material used in the devices were made in Iran.

"That does not translate that the Iranian government per se, for sure, is directly involved in doing this," Pace told reporters in the Indonesian capital, Jakarta. "What it does say is that things made in Iran are being used in Iraq to kill coalition soldiers."

His remarks might raise questions on the credibility of the claims of high-level Iranian involvement, especially following the faulty U.S. intelligence that was used to justify the invasion of Iraq in 2003.


Three senior military officials in Baghdad said Sunday that the highest levels of Iranian government were responsible for arming Shiite militants in Iraq with the bombs, blamed for the deaths of more than 170 U.S. troops

Asked Monday directly if the White House was confident that the weaponry is coming on the approval of the Iranian government, spokesman Tony Snow said, "Yes."

Iran on Monday denied any involvement.

"Such accusations cannot be relied upon or be presented as evidence. The United States has a long history in fabricating evidence. Such charges are unacceptable," Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini told reporters in Tehran.

---

SO here's a perfectly rational sounding General contradicting the claims of the WHite House and other DoD heads about the dangers of Iran.

Why does this sound so familiar? Have there been other instances when less-than-rational claims, which might serve as a casus belli, were being promoted against the views of rational individuals? Say, "WMD", or "yellowcake", or "domino effect"?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Alba
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 10:46 AM

Well Teribus, if I am to go by your patronizing tone and your assertion that you have the abilty to discuss these topic in a manner that would be education or enjoyable then I, personally, have no desire to discuss any of the topics you listed with you directly.

I am afraid I lost all interest in your point of view when I read "Hundreds of years ago, the Chinese invented gunpowder, long before the wicked west got hold of it. The Chinese made this invention into a means of entertaining their Emperor (Fireworks), the West took it and put mankind on the Moon"
That statement seems to be missing the more unsavoury historical details of what the "West" did with Gunpowder.
Anyway, as I said, your tone towards me speaks volumes.
I have never been able warm to a discussion with someone who seems to be of the opinion that they can speak down to me.

You only get once chance at using that tone with me Teribus.
You have just used your one chance.
Have as good a day as an arrogant person like yourself can have Sir.
Jude

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 11:12 AM

Amos,

You say

"Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said U.S. forces hunting down militant networks that produced roadside bombs had arrested Iranians and that some of the material used in the devices were made in Iran.

"That does not translate that the Iranian government per se, for sure, is directly involved in doing this," Pace told reporters in the Indonesian capital, Jakarta. "What it does say is that things made in Iran are being used in Iraq to kill coalition soldiers." "


One could say that
"Reporters said U.S. forces in various prisons and detention centers were commiting acts of torture.

"That does not translate that the U. S. government per se, for sure, is directly involved in doing this. What it does say is that soldiers from the U. S are committing acts of torture"



So I will now demand that you clear the U. S. government of all accusations of torture.


Oh, the government is responsible for what the military is doing?

You mean like Iran is responsible for sending military supplies to the insurgents?????????


I do not see the contradiction of U. S. claims- only that the involvement may not be direct. Please show me where the General says that the Iranian government IS NOT involved in the supply of Iranian military ordinance to the insurrectionists.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 11:19 AM

Why blame Iran? I seem to remember that al-Sadr (Shiite) removed his militia to make room for the surge of U.S. troops. What seems to have occurred is that terrorists have taken advantage of that. It is more likely that the terrorists (insurgents) are Sunni which begs the question, why would Iran arm the Sunnis?

Once again, I smell a fish.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 11:26 AM

I am terribly sorry Jude, maybe you can explain exactly how one is supposed to take:

"I find that statement to be sadly lacking in substance and historical fact."

Patronising?

Overbearing?

Arrogantly dismissive?

My response to your post was, I believe, courteous, civil and pertinent.

As with most that veer to the populist chattering left, when actually challenged, having made the absolutely ludicrous statement that you did make, you shear off behind a smoke-screen of personal attack and mock indignation - but refuse to back up your idiotic statements.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Alba
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 11:31 AM

Thank for providing the expected response Teribus.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 11:38 AM

What you have to understand about Teribus is that, after sending his son off to find glory on the battlefield, he has to defend that
choice. What else can a father do? Its a little late to admit that this might be an unjust war and that his son might be risking his life for no good reason.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 11:39 AM

"I find that statement to be sadly lacking in substance and historical fact."

Surely, while indeed being "dismissive", that is perfectly "courteous, civil and pertinent" on the part of Amos?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 11:41 AM

Terrym honey, these Anglo nations that you hold in such high regard. I take it they are nothing to do with your comment "show me somewhere that has an effective administration" when it was pointed out that the current Iraqi administration is a little lacklustre.
Trouble is, lovey, you keep contradicting yourself in different threads. And when you're not contradicting yourself you're ducking the question and refusing to answer.
But, hey, it's fun exposing your absurd posturing and swaggering. What you fail to realise is that, with every new post extolling the probity of Bush and Blair and the rectitude of an illegal war, you stand exposed as a bigger and bigger clot.
Has no-one ever told you 'stop digging!'?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 11:54 AM

"The U.S. National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq , released last week, concluded that Iranian or Syrian involvement is "not likely to be a major driver of violence" in Iraq .

Paul Krugman wrote that even if Iran were providing aid to some factions in Iraq , "you can say the same about Saudi Arabia , which is believed to be a major source of financial support for Sunni insurgents - and Sunnis, not Iranian-backed Shiites, are still responsible for most American combat deaths." Indeed, 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were Saudis. But as Krugman mentions, the Bush administration's "close personal and financial ties to the Saudis" have caused it to downplay "Saudi connections to America's enemies."

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20070213&articleId=4774

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Amos
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 12:09 PM

Terib:

Don't be silly.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 12:25 PM

Terry, the IRA used the Barrett light 50 sniper rifle to kill people in Northern Ireland. Its active service units also used Browning pistols, Armalite rifles and elderly Garrand carbines.
Does this mean that America armed the IRA?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 12:31 PM

Every country that engages in military production arms whoever they please, depending on where their interests lie. In a dispute between Hezbollah and Israel.....who WOULD Iran send arms to? Hezbollah or Israel? LOL! It's not hard to figure out. Why would Iran NOT assist Hezbollah? And who would the USA arm? Hezbollah or Israel? Why should anyone be even remotely surprised that Iran would help arm Hezbollah? Why should it be fuel for such righteous puffing and blowing as we hear from the USA...when the USA arms anyone anywhere in the world who will do its dirty business for it, and always has done so? That includes death squads in Central and South America who have killed hundreds of thousands of civilians over the past few decades.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 12:56 PM

Proof of the US's degrading global authority. North Korea has agreed to end its nuclear program in exchange for millions of dollars. WE PAID THEM TO STOP!!!!! WE PAID THEM!!!! That's only way we're going to get any other rogue nation to toe the line these days. They know we can't attack or even threaten to attack so that see a great way to squeeze us for much needed funds. And since this was not a case of the US backing NK down but rather NK agreeing to stop if we pay them enough, I have no doubt those funds will eventually be used to bolster the nuclear program that you know damned well they are continuing with. You don't detonate a bomb and then say you are stopping. I'm not buying that. You can if you want.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070213/ap_on_re_as/koreas_nuclear

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 01:06 PM

Heh! Nothing new about that. Did you know that the most tried and true means of taking absolute control of a small foreign nation is by loaning them HUGE amounts of money through institutions like the IMF and the World Bank? Read all about it in "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" by John Perkins.

This is analogous to the Mafia making a loan to a local shopkeeper who's in a jam. Guess who is in control in that scenario? It's not the shopkeeper.

It is asinine to imagine that North Korea poses any credible threat to the USA. It is not asinine to suppose the opposite proposition. The North Korean government is playing the one game it knows: survival. Like a scrawny, fleabitten rat trapped in a maze, it hopes to survive a bit longer by baring its teeth.

Someone will pofit from any financial transactions between the USA and North Korea. Someone always does. You won't hear who that someone is on the news.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 05:53 PM

dianavan - 13 Feb 07 - 11:38 AM

"What you have to understand about Teribus is that, after sending his son off to find glory on the battlefield, he has to defend that
choice. What else can a father do? Its a little late to admit that this might be an unjust war and that his son might be risking his life for no good reason."

Probably ranks as one of the most offensive posts that I have ever seen sent on this Forum, taking into account that it is to the parent whose child is in harms way, compounded by the fact that it uses information sent in confidence via the PM system - Utterly despicable.

"....after sending his son off to find glory on the battlefield" - I "sent my son off" ?? Your grounds for this outrageous remark dianavan are what? He is a professional soldier who knew exactly what could be asked of him from the day he thought about joining up. Exactly the same as I did before him. I am immensely proud of my son and of those who serve with him. I have got nothing but utter contempt for you dianavan, you are a complete and utter waste of space.

"Unjust war"? remember dianavan we are talking about the UN backed one here, besides which the current UN operations taking place in both Afghanistan and in Iraq are fully justified. While myself and others on this forum have explained our point of view and backed that point of view up with what we regard as the salient facts, you and those sharing your point of view have come up with absolutely nothing save tired, emotional rhetoric and a mass of anti-war, anti-Bush myths.

Jude, thank you for corroborating my final paragraph:

"As with most that veer to the populist chattering left, when actually challenged, having made the absolutely ludicrous statement that you did make, you shear off behind a smoke-screen of personal attack and mock indignation - but refuse to back up your idiotic statements."

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 06:03 PM

Hmm. Well, although we shall no doubt continue to disagree strenuously on most of the political stuff, Teribus, I must say that you do have just cause to be offended by that statement Dianavan made about you and your son. It was way below the belt.

Just saying it the way I see it. You know I agree with you on the political stuff, Dianavan.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Alba
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 06:09 PM

No problem.
Don't know what that big word you used means but glad to have been of some help.
Right now I am off to see if there are any threads that a supposed idiotic lefty might be able to contribute too.
You will be delighted to know I won't be back into this Thread.
Alba

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 07:33 PM

The contempt you feel, teribus, bounces off of me and sticks to you. In other words, its mutual and has very little to do with one post.

I did not initiate the PM. If you want to tell me that your son is a soldier, thats up to you. If I say you sent him off to war, it is no different than any other parent who has done the same. I'm sure there was a send-off, regardless of whether or not he enlisted. As a military man, yourself, I'm sure you are proud of him, following in his dad's footsteps and all. Whether or not you or your son glorify war, I do not know. That assumption was based on you rigorous support of the war in Iraq.

As far as your point of view - I stand by what I said. Of course, you have to take the position you do. Otherwise you would have to admit that Bush and Blair were wrong and that this is a useless war. Why else would anyone refuse to consider the evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Feb 07 - 03:11 AM

What evidence, neither you or your fellow travellers have to date provided one shred of evidence.

You have come up with nothing save tired, emotional rhetoric and lies, half-truths and misrepresentations.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 14 Feb 07 - 06:33 AM

Dianavan,


Of course, you have to take the position you do. Otherwise you would have to admit that Bush and Blair were right and that this is a justified war. Why else would anyone refuse to consider the evidence?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Feb 07 - 11:14 AM

Read "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" by John Perkins. You will discover why the various wars have happened in the last few decades and you will plainly see that not one of them was ever justified.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Feb 07 - 11:47 AM

Sometimes an off-key post can put a hole in a thread that sinks it. I'm afraid dianavan has done that for this one.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Feb 07 - 03:54 PM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/13/AR2007021301158.html

(text for those without access)

Nuclear Bargaining
Within 60 days, North Korea is to halt plutonium production. Then will come the real test of its intentions.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007; Page A18


THE "ACTION PLAN" on North Korea's denuclearization issued yesterday by the "six-party" talks in Beijing offers the advantage of focusing, initially, on a single and relatively modest exchange. Within 60 days, the North Korean regime is to shut down its Yongbyon nuclear reactor and reprocessing plant under the monitoring of international inspectors, who would return to the country after a four-year absence. In exchange the North is to receive 50,000 tons of fuel oil, the "resolution" of U.S. banking sanctions and the beginning of bilateral talks on the normalization of U.S.-North Korean relations. If the shutdown takes place, North Korean production of plutonium for nuclear weapons will also stop -- a welcome if very limited step forward.

Unlike the failed "Agreed Framework" between the Clinton administration and North Korea, the new deal is not open-ended: North Korea will get no more than the one-time "emergency" supply of oil, worth about $12 million, unless it takes further action. This accord also includes China, South Korea, Japan and Russia, whose involvement raises the chance that Pyongyang will comply and demonstrates that the six-party approach the Bush administration embraced more than three years ago can produce results. In that sense it is wrong to argue that the administration has simply reverted to the Clinton-era arrangement that it repudiated in 2002, and if it is rewarding North Korea's misbehavior, the bribe is a small one.

The drawback is that North Korea keeps, for now, the weapons and plutonium stockpile it has amassed. Also, as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice acknowledged yesterday, the first real test of whether dictator Kim Jong Il will give up his nukes lies in a less clearly defined future. According to the plan, North Korea is to permanently disable the Yongbyon facilities and provide a "complete declaration of all nuclear programs" in exchange for the equivalent of 950,000 more barrels of oil. How and when it will accomplish the disablement, how its disclosure will be verified and what else it might receive in exchange remain to be worked out; among the many difficulties is the North's refusal to acknowledge a secret uranium enrichment program. As Ms. Rice said, those steps would be "a sign that the North Koreans may, in fact, be ready to make a strategic choice" to give up nuclear weapons.

Along with many experts on North Korea, we're skeptical that Mr. Kim would choose to give up nuclear weapons unless he were convinced that the survival of his regime depended on it. Administration officials say they have been encouraged to believe that China, which controls North Korea's lifelines of fuel and food, has made the regime's disarmament a priority since its nuclear test last fall; recently enacted U.N. sanctions may also help. Trying to push Mr. Kim into a permanent shutdown of plutonium production over the next year is certainly worthwhile. Yesterday's announcement was a start, but as the football-loving Ms. Rice said, "This is still the first quarter."

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Feb 07 - 05:31 PM

This is more of the usual game. The aid to North Korea, whether it is in the form of fuel or in some other form, will be provided by large, privately-owned N.G.O.'s (corporate entities) who will get paid handsomely for it by someone....the US govt, I would assume. They certainly aren't going to give it away for free! ;-) That means the American public will pay for it indirectly through their taxes, and the corporations will cash in...as always. The politicians will have rewarded the big invisible hand that funds them and puts them in Congress or the White House. That's what it's always about, in the final analysis: corporate profit.

If a byproduct, however, is to reduce the threat of war in that region, well, that's considerably better than nothing.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 14 Feb 07 - 10:11 PM

McGrath - What I was pointing out was the fact that teribus is not exactly objective in his analysis.

As far as sinking the thread, maybe or maybe not.

Besides that, the U.S. has bought off Korea which leaves Iran.

If Bush were to invade Iran, he is crazier than I thought and will probably destroy Israel in the process.

Carry on.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 15 Feb 07 - 03:22 AM

dianavan - none of us is wholly objective. I have very close friends who have been and are on tours in both Iraq and Afghanistan. It is their first-hand experiences which shape my views. As such I believe the NATO operations in Afghanistan to be justified (if somewhat poorly put together) and the US-led invasion of Iraq to be wholly unjustified.
That is necessarily a subjective view because, unlike some, I am not privy to all the facts and don't have 20:20 foresight.
I also think the betrayal of confidences is unforgiveable. If you cannot conduct an argument based on the generally available facts (particularly in this instance) then step away from the plate. Such 'dirty tricks' belong in the hands of the sort currently machinating against the Democrat candidates in the US elections.
McGrath is right - this thread is now tainted.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 15 Feb 07 - 05:27 AM

If it was a secret that his son was in the military service, he should have told me.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 15 Feb 07 - 05:30 AM

Here is the first post.

Now you can start with a clean slate.

Subject: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 09:30 AM

Any guesses?