2/11    Iran declares itself a nuclear nation today:
        http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100211/ts_afp/iranrevolutionanniversary
        \_ Hurry up Kim Jun *THE THIRD*, you're way behind!
        \_ Iran also packed tens of thousands of rural poor onto buses,
           drove them into Tehran, and had them pose for pro-gov't. rallies
           by promising food, drink, and prizes, then declared themselves
           a popular, democratic country. And I declare myself king of the
           moon. Doesn't make it so.
        \_ Nuke it.

8/10    http://csua.org/u/osg
        "If the Iranians were to successfully mine these waters, the disruption
        to 40 percent of the world’s oil flow would be immediate and dramatic.
        The nastiest part of the equation would be that in mine warfare, it is
        very hard to know when all the mines have been cleared. It is the risk,
        not the explosions, which causes insurance companies to withdraw
        insurance on vastly expensive tankers and their loads. It is insurance
        that allows the oil to flow. "

7/24    Another plane crash in Iran in two weeks.
        http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090724/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iran_plane
        In both times the planes were Russian-made, and in both times they
        blamed U.S. sanctions.  Why don't they blame the Russian govt for
        cutting funding for manufacturers that make spare parts (as mentioned
        at the end of the article) that would have actually made a difference
        to the planes in the crashes?
        \_ Is this a serious question?
        \_ Has anyone noticed there's been an US carrier plane crash about one
           month since Jan.  Wtf?  Why no OUTRAGE.
           \_ What does this mean?

3/2     Iran arrested a US journalist on Feb 10.
        http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5831812.ece

11/2    http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE4AB1WG20081112
        megalolz.

9/26    Russia's a democracy. Iran's a democracy. Wouldn't they be
        members of McCain's League of Democracies?
        \_ Russia is definitely not a democracy.  Any decision may be
           arbitrarily changed by Putin.  Iran is not a democracy, at least
           no the US version.  any decision by the democratically elected
           not the US version.  any decision by the democratically elected
           leadership can be overruled by the chief cleric.
           \_ And yet they both hold reasonably free and fair elections, which
              makes them democracies, at least by definition. What McCain is
              proposing (and you are agreeing with) is an arbitrary club of
              countries we like. We currently call this NATO.
        \_ I still don't think you can really say Iran and Russia are
           democracies.  It stretches the bounds of credibility to say that
           Russia has free and fair elections.  The country is controlled
           by Putin.  Few would disagree with this.  Absolutely any decision
           in Iran can be modified by the Supreme Ruler I mean head cleric.

7/9     Iran photoshops missle launch photos
        http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/30597_Irans_Photoshopped_Missile_Launch
        \_ Bush and Ahmadi-Nejad should really be friends, not foes.  They both
           like to exaggerate Iran's military capabilities.

6/6     Ehud Olmert threatens Israeli attacks on Iran
        http://www.reuters.com/article/wtMostRead/idUSL0625195820080606
        Of course, given the Olmert's circumstances, this seems a bit
        'wag the dog'.
        \_ Olmert has a single digit approval rating.  He has no political
           future.  This is unlikely wagging.  The real concern is his gvt
           will micromanage any strikes on Iran like they did with Hamas and
           make things even worse (if that's possible).

6/4     Obama promises to eliminate Iran
        http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSWAT00959220080604
        Nevermind, Obama is ok with me now. -motd ex-Obama hater
        \_ Where in the article does it mention eliminating Iran?
           \_ "The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be
              to eliminate this threat"
              \_ Eliminating the threat, not eliminating the country.
                 \_ So, he's just going to eliminate all their military
                    capabilities?
                    \_ Eliminating a threat does not always mean bombing
                       back to the stone age.  In fact, bombing back to the
                       stone age often doesn't eliminate a threat, see Iraq.
                       \_ So, he's going to give them WTO membership and
                          they'll learn to love the Jews and stop promising
                          to "wipe them off the map"?
                          \_ I didn't realize that was the only other choice.
                             Silly me.
                          \_ It is this kind of binary thinking that got us
                             into the mess we are in in the first place.
                             \_ Exactly!  We should just talk with them.  Use
                                the power of diplomacy and negotiate.  The pen
                                is mightier than the sword.  After Obama has a
                                chance to talk with Iran's leadership, they'll
                                come around and see this was all just a big
                                misunderstanding and it'll be just like Nixon
                                going to China.  We don't need binary
                                thinking.  We need Obama's fuzzy thinking.
                                \_ The world is more complex than you are
                                   capable of imagining.
                                   \_ I'm capable of quite a lot, thanks.  Are
                                      you saying we should not talk to anyone?
                                      It is hard to tell what you're trying to
                                      say since you said so little.
                                      \_ Your snarkiness does not really
                                         indicate a desire for a serious reply.
                                         If you are actually interested in a
                                         serious conversation about how
                                         International Diplomacy works (when
                                         not run by arrogant boobs, like the
                                         current Admin) I will be happy to
                                         have one with you. But you might be
                                         better off picking up a copy of
                                         Foreign Affairs first.
                                         \_ My snarkiness?  I made a statement.
                                            Your only replies were to insult
                                            me.  You have still added nothing
                                            to this thread.  Why did you even
                                            bother to post if you had nothing
                                            to add?
                                            \_ "We need Obama's fuzzy thinking"
                                                is a statement? Do you really
                                                believe that?
                                                is a non-snarky statement?
                                                Do you really believe that? The
                                                whole paragraph was snarky.
        \_ "Obama also vowed to vigorously support Israel's right to defend
           itself ......".  See, I told you, Obama is not black.  Only a day
           after he secured the Democratic nomination using support from black
           people, he's already letting out his 50% whiteness.
           \_ Black people hate Israel?  I didn't know that sterotype.
              \_ Yeah, and Latinos hating blacks is just another stereotype,
                 too.  Yeah, really.
        \_ And a politician *never* goes back on his promises, right?
           \_ If we're going to go with this assumption, then I'm voting for
              Obama because I like him better, no other reason.
                 \_ You are insane aren't you?
                    \_ Didn't Hillary dominate the Hispainc vote because of
                       racial tension between Lations and blacks?
           \_ In this country, you cannot win the presidency if you
              don't support the Jews. It's as simple as that.
              \_ Or any other group with more that accounts for 5% or more of
                 the people.  I'm sure you didn't intend to sound racist when
                 you said that.
                 \_ The GOP routinely wins office with less than 10% support
                    from Blacks, a voting block much larger than 5% of the
                    population. Not to detract from your main point though.
                    \_ This has been based, traditionally, on voter apathy
                       among blacks. See if this changes this year.
                       \_ Hello mr. clueless!

4/24    Oops, Mumbai caught supplying Iran with A-bomb material
        http://www.newindpress.com/NewsItems.asp?ID=IEP20080423103959&Page=P&Title=Nation&Topic=0
        \_ Really?  A Bangalorian newspaper was the only place you could find
        \_ Really?  A Chennaian newspaper was the only place you could find
           this story?
           \_ http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=iran+graphite+&btnG=Search+News

11/15   Santas warned 'ho ho ho' offensive to women - Yahoo News!
        http://www.csua.org/u/k0a
        Oh, c'mon!  Gee.
        \_ MERRY NON-DEMONATIONAL COMPLETELY-SECULAR INOFFENSIVE WINTER EVENT!
           \_ "MERRY"?  Did I just hear "Marry"?  How dare you discriminate
              against people who prefer single lives!
              \_ Management sincely apologises for any offense and/or distress
                 and/or suffering our inexcusable and rude use of the "M"-word
                 may have caused.
           \_ That's what the politically-correct "Happy Holidays!" is for.
              Sucks.  I prefer "Merry Christmas!" even though I'm atheist.
              \_ BABY KILLER!  Don't you know that "Holiday" is derived from
                 "Holy Day"?!?@!111

10/24   so how is ISLAMO FACISM AWARENESS WEEK going?
        \_ David Horowitz would make the ultimate Motd troll.
        \_ http://www.newsweek.com/id/57346
           "Here is the reality. Iran has an economy the size of
            Finland's and an annual defense budget of around $4.8
            billion. It has not invaded a country since the late 18th century"
            \_ Does financing and supporting internation terrorism count
               as invasion?
               \_ Since the primary victims of Iranian funded terrorism are
                  Israeli jews, no it doesn't count, because as we all know
                  Hamas, Fatah (once headed by the democratically elected
                  Nobel Peace Prize winner, Arafat), and the rest are all
                  just Freedom Fighters working hard to liberate their
                  homeland from oppressive racist invaders.  <sarcasm off>

10/11   Man, why didn't I hear about this sooner?  We're sending bionic
        squirrels to Iran! http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7007906268
        \_ You missed a zillion rocky n bullwinkle jokes.  Most of them were
           lame.

7/23    Why aren't we just bombing this country already?
        http://urltea.com/11o5 (news.yahoo.com)
        \_ Yeah I bet those young women are just begging to be bombed.

7/23    Why aren't we just bombing this country already?
        http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070723/wl_mideast_afp/iranwomenfashion_070723175421

6/7     Iran caught red-handed arming the Taliban
        http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/06/document_iran_c.html
        \_ By "red-handed" you mean "senior white house officials" leaked
           some "intelligence."
           \_ I hear Saddam had WMDs
           \_ No, NATO officials, not white house officials.  And Richard
              Clarke is no friend of the Bush administration. -emarkp
        \_ Iran has every incentive to keep America busy because once US is
           done with Iraq and Afganistan, Iran will be next.
           Having said that, you obviously have absolutely no sense of history.
           Taliban was one of the biggest national security threat to Iran, and
           Iran is actually glad that US toppled Taliban.

5/22    Iran beating their women:
        http://urltea.com/lyp (gatewaypundit.blogspot.com)
        \_ Obviously we must invade them and convert them to Christianity.

5/22    Iran beating their women:
        http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2007/05/my-god-theyre-beating-their-women-to.html
        \_ Obviously we must invade them and convert them to Christianity.

3/29    My analysis of the Iran UK hostage situation:
        Iran was conducting war games.  UK rubber boats were close to border
        but did not cross.  Iranian navy commander orders capture of UK guys
        because he had orders to detain observers.  Iran calculates UK/U.S.
        won't do shit -- good.  Iran calculates even if UK/U.S. do something,
        it will drive up oil prices -- good.  Any way you look at it, win/win
        for Iran.
        Predicted end game:  Prisoner swap.  UK rules of engagement revised.
        \_ The UK isn't holding any Iranians that we know of.  They also import
           40% of their gasoline, which is somewhat ironic being one of the
           world's largest oil exporters, so a simple blockade would devastate
           their economy.  Not so win/win for Iran if things turn ugly.
        \_ http://www.csua.org/u/id7
           Iran grabbed the hostages in retaliation for American attempt
           to snatch Iranian senior intelligence officials.

3/25    http://www.csua.org/u/ib9
        Iran says they have signed confessions from the Brit soldiers to
        "to aggression into the Islamic Republic of Iran's waters" and that
        they'll trade them for Iranian spies captured in Iraq.
        Will this be an Archduke Ferdinand moment?
        \_ This situation is beyond crazy. Has anyone seen analysis that
           clearly shows whose territorial waters these sailors were caught in?
        \_ No, Bush would clearly love to "double down" in Iran, but his
           hands are tied now. Two years ago, this would have meant war.
           \_ These are british soldiers, not americans.
              \_ And?
                 \_ And?
              \_ British->NATO->US, says Bush.
        \_ Who exactly is "Iran" and what did they say?
        \_ Wonder how the Brits'll react?  Freeze Iranian funds?  The
           Iranians are pretty clearly in the wrong.
           \_ how about grabbing an iranian vessell from iranian waters, taking
              the crew prisoner, and claiming they are all spies with signed
              confessions.
           \_ Are you sure that the Brits were not in Iranian waters? All I have
              seen are "he said - she saids" claims. I assume the Brits
           \_ Are you sure that the Brits were not in Iranian waters? All I
              have seen are "he said - she said" claims. I assume the Brits
              will escalate until the Iranians back down. We shall see.
              \_ There is concensus.  They were in Iraqi waters.
              \_ 3/27 Update:
                 http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070327/wl_nm/iran_dc
                "Blair's spokesman said the next step London could take would
                be to publish proof, in the form of global satellite
                positioning (GPS) records, that the sailors had not entered
                Iranian waters."
                But of course Iran could claim that the GPS records are fake.
                BTW, if Margaret Thatcher were still the PM, the Brits would be
                planning to nuke Iran by now.
                \_ At least sending the fleet in that direction, but Briton
                   doesn't have much of a fleet anymore.

12/29   Man, Germans are STUPID. They don't know the difference between
        Sydney Australia and Sidney Montana in US of A.
        http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/12/29/germany.tourist.reut
        \_ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16389973
        \- E_RATCHET
        \_ I wonder how many American people think the Sydney Opera House is
           in Austria, the capital of classical music; Thai is the language
           spoken in Taiwan; there are grand casinos in the Principality of
           Morocco; etc.
           \_ I've met tons of people who think Taiwanese restaurants serve
              Thai food, and that Taiwanese is the language spoken in Thailand.
              I've also met tons of people who think Persians and Iranians are
              from different continents and that Iran and Iraq are the same.
              I do have to admit that over the past decade or so, people are
              slowly realizing that Iran and Iraq are not the same. This is
              from my experience in California of course. I wonder how much
              smarter/dumber people from other states are.
              \_ Since you mentioned Iran, here's another one: "Iran is an Arab
                 country."  -- PP

12/21   Would you support selling Israel down the river if that helped solve
        the Iran and Iraq problems?
        \_ there are no problem in Iran.  It's like trying to prevent your
           teenage daughter from having sex.  You just have to accept the
           reality.
        \_ In this fantasy world, would I get a pony too?
        \_ No, I don't think I'd trade a low-intensity conflict for a full
           scale middle-east war + attempted re-enactment of the holocaust.
           How about you?
           \- just out of curiosity, who would go to "full scale war"
              against a nuclear israel? --psb
              \_ nuclear "wipe Israel off the map" Iran?
                 \- dont be silly. pak and india arent going to exchange
                    nukes, neither are iran and israel. what you should be
                    much more concerned about is the pakistani state falling
                    apart. i think taiwan may have more to fear from china
                    than israel does from iran.
                    \_ But when Iran does do what it's been promising to
                       do, I'm sure I'll hear a lot of, "There's no way
                       we could have seen THAT coming..."
                       \- yeah and communism still hasnt been discredited ...
                          it'll happen some day.
                    \_ you have no idea what are you talking about.  If
                       Israel/Iran relationship is like mainland China and
                       and Taiwan, the world will be a much better place.
                       \- i am not comparing the relationship between,
                          i am comparing "threat probabilities". the dynamics
                          between who will win the rose bowl has nothing
                          to do with will it rain tomorrow, but you certainly
                          can say "it is more likely it will rain tomorrow
                          than UMich will win the rosebowl".
                          \_ that is exactly what I am saying.  The "threat
                             probabilities" between mainland China and Taiwan
                             is next to zero unless Taiwan do something really
                             stupid.
        \_ Appeasement of enemies only emboldens them. And how quickly
           you forget who originally supplied them with arms (hint : Not the
           U.S.)
           \_ Who?
           \_ The world is a lot more complicated than your little throw away
              one liner. Who are our "enemies" and who determines that? Do you
              have an "enemies" list and how can I get on it? Or off of it,
              for that matter, since it appears from your statement that
              there is no way.
        \_ [Discussion of Israel censored and restored.]

11/02   November surprise?
        http://csua.org/u/hcz (SFGate.com article)
        link:csua.org/u/hd0 (Picture, jpg, Work Safe)
        \_ Iran fires Shahab-3 with 1250 mile range.  No surprise.  They've
           been working on this for a long time.  You think Iran's missile
           test has something to do with the silly American mid-term elections?
           Tell us your theory.
           \_ /shrug. No theory, just asking.
              \_ Seriously, I doubt the Iranians are trying to change our
                 elections with a missile test.  If they nuked something or
                 sent 200k soliders into Iraq or something that like it would
                 have an effect but I don't think it would be predictable
                 exactly *what* effect.  Sometimes a missile test is just a
                 missile test.  Once they conduct a successful nuke test then
                 there'll be something to worry about.

9/15    http://csua.org/u/gwl (Krauthammer, Wash Post)
        I hope the dunderheads in the White House aren't taking military advice
        from this wacko, and are taking it instead from veteran analysts in the
        Pentagon/CIA.  There are overriding holes in Krauthammer's column.
        \_ Of course you don't mention any of those holes.  Besides--overriding
           holes?  I've never heard that phrase.
           \_ I thought it was a weird phrase too, but I stuck with it. -op
        \_ I usually find Krauthammer to be just this side of nuts. It's nice
           to see that even the nuts think this is a bad idea.

9/1     Highly enriched uranium found in peace love electricity needing Iran.
        http://upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20060901-070212-4100r
        \_ Why do you bother?  I think it's clear they want a bomb, they're
           working towards a bomb, and that likely they'll get a bomb, the
           only thing up for discussion right now is whether or not they
            have any "right" to it, and how to deal with them once they
            succeed... -John
            \_ There is no such thing as a "right" to anything.  They either
               have the tech, the resources and the will power to do it or
               they don't.  The rest of the world has the tech, the resources
               and the will power to stop them or they don't.  There is no
               such thing as international rights, international law or other
               similar fabrications.
               \_ hey, the freshmen are back in town.  -tom
                  \_ ad hominem.  non-responsive.  F.
                     \_ Responding to a red herring is pointless.  -tom
                        \_ then don't respond if you feel it is a red herring.
                           ad hominem is never the appropriate response.  also,
                           you might want to look up "red herring".
                           \_ exactly which MOTD have you been reading?  -tom
                              \_ the same one as you.  mine has tons of smart
                                 people talking about interesting stuff who
                                 often provide links to sites and info I
                                 wouldn't otherwise see, interspersed with a
                                 few non-contributors.  what is on your motd?
                                 \_ apparently, mine has self-righteous
                                    anonymous cowards who love MOTD Boob Guy.
                                      -tom
                                    \_ mine also has a few mostly harmless
                                       people amusing themselves and a few
                                       others.  nothing wrong with that.
        \_ Of course they have a right to it.  They have a right to make a
           massive weapon that they can use to threaten their enemies with.
           And we have a right to do everything in our power to stop them
           from getting it.  It's not about rights.  It's about power.  We
           have it and we don't want them to get it.
           \_ Agreed.
           \_ Kewl, so we can forget about all that UN silliness, or the WTO
              or any sense of obligation to honor treaties we sign, might
              makes right!  W00t!  -John
              \_ Welcome to the real world.  If a long term treaty obligation
                 is against a nation's interests they *should* break the
                 treaty unless breaking it involves even worse consequences.
                 Everything is about national interest and a nation's ability
                 to enforce their will.  The UN, WTO, and every other multi-
                 national .org only exist at the whim of the member states who
                 have decided that continuing the existence of these groups and
                 sometimes following their rules is more valuable than
                 scrapping the agreements and going alone.  The UN isn't some
                 magical creature that has some inherent right and power.  Like
                 the League of Nations it is likely to be swept aside by
                 history only to be remembered by historians as an interesting
                 footnote at best.  Nations will continue on by some name.
                 Powerless orgs will come and go.
                 \_ So if there are no cops around, and I'm confident that I
                    can kick your ass and take your lunch money, than I not
                    only *can* kick your ass and take your lunch money, I have
                    the historical mandate to do so.  Could you please post how
                    much lunch money you usually carry, where you eat lunch,
                    and how you get there?  Thanks!
                        \- the lunch episode exists in a state of
                           law ["the cops are not around"]. states
                           exist in an anarchic system [anarchic =
                           no hierarchy, not "it is random and
                           chaotic"]. life for individual in the
                           (anarhcic) state of nature is "nasty,
                           brutish, and short" ... but a state can
                           potentially survive [e.g. it doesnt have
                           to sleep], but it needs to rely on itself.
                           anayway, you cannot compare the possibility
                           of cooperation under the rule of a soverign
                           [who can enforce contracts, has monopoly on
                           use of force etc], and the self-help system
                           that characterizes the system of states.
                           See: Hedley Bull: The Anarchical Society (not
                           that great, but it is The Standard for background),
                           and Waltz: Man, the State and War (excellent,
                           not too hard going), and Waltz: Theory of Interntl
                           Politics (some what involved read, but The Standard
                           on IR).
                    \_ Yes and no.  If you're willing to deal with the
                       consequences afterwards then yes you might get one
                       day's worth of lunch money and then find yourself
                       suspended from school or your knees broken the next day,
                       etc.  Cute analogy but doesn't fully apply since you
                       and I aren't nations.  The difference between personal
                       conflict and national is that nations are more
                       amorphous than people but can theoretically live on
                       forever.  Individuals are always subject to the
                       consequences of their actions by the state, their
                       neighbors, etc.  Unless you're a super villain you
                       can't get away with things a powerful nation can, or
                       even a weaker nation within it's own regional sphere
                       of influence.  I'm sure you knew all this but I thought
                       your cute reply deserved a response.
                       \_ stop digging.  -tom
                          \_ uh whatever.
                       \_ I bet you're one of these people who're surprised
                          about being treated rudely as an American when
                          abroad or when a bomb goes off in Manhattan.  There
                          are no "international cops", yes, but you know what,
                          in the absence of law & order, vigilanteism arises.
                          And guess what, if the response of the stronger is
                          to go kick the ass of the weaker, the weaker won't
                          hit back at the stronger's army, they'll hit back at
                          his soft spot, i.e. you.  -John
                          \_ All part of national interest.  Being treated
                             rudely as a tourist has to be weighed against
                             other interests.  In my book that weighs quite
                             low.  Anyway, if I get treated rudely as a tourist
                             it is much more likely because most people are
                             just rude idiots or they simply hate all tourists
                             than some grand geo-political statement and their
                             small effort to Fight The Man.  As far as soft vs.
                             hard spots goes, that is another thing to be
                             weighed.  I'm sure the US would be safe from
                             Muslim terrorists if we all converted to Islam,
                             \_ If you really believe this, then you're an
                                idiot.
                                \_ If you really believe this, then you're an
                                   idiot.
                             but I'm ok being a soft spot rather than join an
                             ugly 8th century cult of death.  I certainly
                             agree that we're taking the wrong approach to
                             the middle east's Islamic states.  We should
                             either just go home, leave a power gap and let
                             it sort itself out or stomp them down for real
                             instead of this namby pamby stuff.  I'll bet the
                             secular states in the region would much more
                             quickly crush the extremist Islamic movements in
                             their areas than us if their to their own devices.

9/1     No, Iran and N.Korea, You can't do this, only -benign- power like USA
        is allow to test its nukes:
        http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200608/s1728616.htm
        May be USA should sign Nuclear Test Ban Treaty...  May be we should
        impose economic sanction on those who violates NPT... which is...
        err... ourselves.
        \_ Well, we are neither importing from nor exporting to ourselves.
        \_ We should do whatever is in our national interest.  Iran should do
           whatever is in their national interest.  Any nation that does not
           do whatever is in their national interest will cease to be a nation
           and will be replaced by one or more entities that do whatever is in
           their own interest.
           \_ but they are axis of evil and we are doing everything defend
              democracy and human rights.
              \_ thanks for trolling the thread today.  the rest of us will
                 be having a discussion elsewhere that you're welcome to
                 contribute to.
           \_ Acting in our interest does not necessarily translate into
              acting against the interests of other nations; the overlap of
              these interests is the basis of diplomacy.
              \_ I didn't specify what "interest" meant.  For example, a tiny
                 weak country may find it is in their interest to do whatever
                 their larger neighbor wants a la "Findlandization" during the
                 Soviet era.  The Fins didn't like this policy but it was in
                 their interests to knuckle under to avoid invasion and out-
                 right take over.  Had Finland told the Soviets to piss off
                 that would have not been in their national interest because
                 shortly after there wouldn't be a Finland.
                 \- in general, the two behaviours are called
                    "bandwagoning" vs. "balancing" [as in
                    "balance of power"]. BTW, if you are
                    interested in IR theory it is pretty
                    amazing how much you can learn from
                    Thucydides: History of the Peloponnesian War ...
                    given that it is a 2400 yr old story and "only"
                    involved a few greek city-states.
                    \_ Read it.  Great stuff.
        \_ Five countries are permitted under the NPT to possess nuclear
           weapons, by virtue of their having nukes at the time they signed the
           treaty.  Notable countries w/nuke tech but w/o nuke weapons who have
           signed:  Japan, Iran.  Notable countries which produced nukes at
           signed:  Japan, Iran.  Notable countries which developed nukes at
           a time when they were not NPT signatories:  India, Pakistan, Israel.
           Now guess which countries had nukes at the time they signed the NPT?
           Iran.  Now guess which countries had nukes at the time they signed
           the NPT?

8/31    "There's simply no explanation for the range of Iranian behavior which
        we've seen over the years other than that they're pursuing a weapons
        capability" -UN Ambassador John Bolton
        \_ Stunning analysis!
        \_ If the Bush administration plans to bomb Iran regardless of what
           Iran does, what motivation does Iran have to listen to them?
           Where's the carrot?  Does anyone think they're *not* going to
           attack Iran eventually, assuming that they can maintain control
           of the government, and that there is no impeachment?
           \_ I think it's extremely unlikely Dubya will bomb Iran.
              This is strategically not the best move for the U.S.
        \_ I haven't heard anyone (other than Iran) actually say they believe
           Iran _isn't_ going for nukes.  I mean, it's the right thing to do,
           strategically.
           \_ It's one thing to say they're gunning for nukes, it's another
              thing to say they they want to conduct activity legal under the
              NPT which also puts them closer to breaking out to a nuke
              capability if they have to.
           \_ Plus the Iranians basically all but running around in their
              nuke-patterned underoos and "I'm with the other nuke powers"
              t-shirts, doing the "we've got nukes" dance while yelling LA LA
              LA WE HAVE NUKES AND YOU CAN'T STOP US.  -John
              \_ hmm... Israel has the bomb, India has the bomb, Pakistan has
                 the bomb.  AND US/UK/Israel have the track record of
                 overthrown Iranian government at their whim. And now 80% of
                 US' deployable force is right across the border.
                 Having a bomb is actually a sound, defensive policy!
                 Further, our policy toward NPT is like a football game.
                 Once you reach the goal line, you actually get rewarded.
                 \_ Erm, Israel has overthrown the Iranian government when?
                    \_ ok ok ok, Israel didn't overthrow Iranian government
                       in 1953, but Israel worked closely with Shah.  This
                       pisses Iranian off even today.
                       \_ Um, is it that or that they're all Jews.
           \_ Iran does best strategically not to go nukes now, but to go
              nuclear energy, and use the possibility of breakout as a
              deterrent.
              \_ Right, and this is where Bolton's statement falls apart.
                 There _is_ another explanation for the range of Iranian
                 behavior, and that is that this path is the same you'd need
                 to follow to get utterly legal nuclear power.
                 \_ Not quite utterly legal.  I think the most recent UN
                    resolution is legally binding, although I think it's quite
                    explicit in having further discussions on punishment and
                    not being an automatic sanction/war pass for member
                    states. -breakout guy
                    resolution is legally binding, although I think there are
                    definitive clauses which say further discussions on
                    punishment are needed, and not being an automatic
                    sanction/war pass for member states. -breakout guy
                    \_ A good point. Let me back up and say that this is a
                       path to nuclear power that works within the NPT.
              \_ Not really.. they're best off to prove they already have them
                 ASAP, like Pakistan.
                 \_ I should say "best strategically and also best practically"
                 \_ I should say "best strategically & also best practically"

7/28    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,251-2290713,00.html
        Security Council agrees on UN resolution that gives Iran until end of
        next month to halt enrichment, and if they don't, they'll get another
        chance to comply, and if they don't, there may be sanctions ... or not
        (which, if actually implemented, will probably hurt the U.S and help
        China and Russia anyway).  Morons.  We need a new, robust NPT that
        restricts peaceful enrichment to select sites and makes guarantees on
        availability to those who aren't enriching.  At least we're not
        bombing - our troops will be the first to pay in case that happens.
        \_ A new, robust NPT that will exempt the U.S., you mean.
           \_ what part of "makes guarantees on availability to those who
              aren't enriching" is hard to understand?
        \_ err... US is a violator of NPT, right?  and you know Iran can
                        \_ since when?
           easily withdraw from NPT and everything will be legal, right?
                        \_ true.
           do you know US already have an economic sanction in place against
                        \_ true.
           Iran so any UN sanction is not going to hurt US, while UN sanction
                        \_ true.
           is going to hurt Russia/China and rest of the world who has huge
           bilateral ecnomic tie to Iran, right?
                        \_ true but how smart is it to let a country like
                           iran have nukes?  Russia and China both have serious
                           problems with Muslim terrorists.  Maybe next time
                           it won't be a Russian movie theatre but the whole
                           city.  Not now.  Not in five years.  But ten?  What
                           about 20 years from now?  30?
           \_ do you know what "sloppy sanctions" are?  China and Russia
              won't give in to real sanctions.  Trust me, any sanctions
              Iranian oil will get out in one way or the other.
           \_ Trust me, with "sanctions" applied, Iranian oil will get out
              in one way or the other.  Let's say the oil isn't available
              to Western markets.  Let's say China and Iran are getting all
              to Western markets.  Let's say China and Russia are getting all
              the oil then.  Then who is hurt MORE by UN sanctions on Iran?

7/12    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/12/world/12cnd-diplo.html
        "Russia and China Support Sanctions Threat for Iran"
        What I call "sloppy sanctions", as predicted six weeks ago, in an
        eventual deal that would benefit everyone but the U.S.
        \_ They support "sanctions threat" or actual sanctions?
           \_ threat.  all i'm saying is, with all of their playing hard to
              get on sanctions, when we actually "get" them to apply sanctions,
              the terms of the sanctions will be so sloppy that they'll get
              everything they want.
           \_ remember, US has economic embargo against Iran already, so
              UN sanction is not going to hurt US any more.  China and Russia,
              OTOH, has huge trade relationship with Iran and literally
              hundreds of millions at stake.  Further, Iran supplies
              something like 15-18% of oil to China.  China is not going to
              do anything against its oil supplier, just like US is not going
              to wage War on Terror against Saudi's.

6/1     EU3, U.S., Russia, and China reportedly agree on incentives, penalties
        package for Iran, what I call "sloppy sanctions".  My prediction:
        (1) Iran will continue enrichment research.
        (2) Penalties will be imposed, but not necessarily by a vote from the
            Security Council.
        (3) The penalties are limited in scope:  Blocking of financial
            transactions by Iranian govt officials by U.S. and most European
            banks, partial blocking of refined oil sold to Iran, visa blocks
            for govt officials for U.S. and most European countries.
        (4) China and anyone else who wants to get on board will cash in on:
            Financial transactions through unblocked instruments (through other
            banks, and partially by screens through private entities),
            continued favorable crude and refined oil contracts for China and
            Russia, limited arms sales from China and Russia, closer ties.
        (5) Iran will suffer only limited short-term effects economically.
        (6) In other words, everyone gets what they want except Dubya+Condi.
        (7) A new U.S. administration will come on board and try to figure out
            how to fix the Iran deal that benefits everyone but the U.S.
        \_ and the sanctions worked oh-so-well with IRAQ?
           \_ In a way, they did.  They didn't _have_ WMDs...
             \_ Just because US occupation forces haven't found any doesn't
                mean they never had any.
                \_ they're either in Syria, Iran, or buried in the desert!
                   \_ We know exactly where they are!

                \_ You don't sound like a desperate, pro-war republican
                   at all ... nah, no way.
                      \_ Somewhere to the north, east, and west...
        \_ Just FYI, Iran is not doing anything illegal right now.  They have
           the right to enrich Uranium for peaceful purposes under NPT.
           And... FYI,  USA is actively HINDERS international investigation
           on Mr. Khan of Pakistan and his nuclear black market for some
           reason.
           \_ Correction: Iran has not yet been caught doing anything overtly
              illegal as far as the public knows.  URL for your Khan statement
              please.
              \_ the differences between civilian-grade and weapon-grade
                 uranium is only in concentration.  This is the problem
                 of enforcing NPT, as one can claim refining to civilian-grade
                 uranium and there is nothing we can do about.  *FURTHER*
                 1. think IRAQ.  This is dajavu all over again
                 2. USA is also a huge violation of NPT.
                 3. how about India? Pakistan?  Israel?
                 4. Iran can ALWAYS withdraw from NPT.
              \_ !op, no idea what article s/he was referencing, but Google
                 Newsing Abdul Qadeer Khan got this PDQ:
                 http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/06/02/1414236
                 \_ Ok, I read the whole thing.  Let's assume Albright is
                    correct, these guys are CIA assets.  Why would we help
                    prosecute them?
                    \_ how about selling nuclear technologies and some of the
                       material to N.Korea, Iran, and Libya?

5/18    Iran working on the Final Solution
        http://csua.org/u/fx2
        \_ ...speechless. And yet, perhaps not:
           http://www.israpundit.com/2006/?p=1200
           \_ That link basically just says, "No Way!"  "Way!"
              \_ This one's much less ambiguous: http://csua.org/u/fx8
        \_ eh, from the totality of reports I'm seeing, it was definitely
           a motion, it's uncertain whether it was passed into law, and it's
           uncertain whether it was approved by the Supreme Leader
        \_ "This article is no longer available".  Retraction?  -John

5/5     Blair fires Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, who said that a preemptive
        nuclear strike on Iran was "completely nuts", and also said he was as
        "certain as he could be" that the U.S. would not engage in a
        (conventional) preemptive strike, and neither would the UK.
        http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/sunday_am/4893130.stm
        As recently as April 18 this year, Dubya said "all options" were on
        the table ... I believe Blair hasn't publically backed up Straw,
        and instead let Dubya do the talking.
        \_ Jack Straw from Witchita cut his buddy down

3/9     Poll on Iran. We will:
        attack iran:
        talk tough: ....
        send tom and dans to mediate the conflict: ..
        \_ Dude, are you trying to start a civil war? -dans

3/8     Murtha doesn't like Cheney's recent statements on Iran and why
        http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/03/07.html#a7432
        \_ He can try but he is not able to convince average American
           not to attack Iran.  Most American think we can go in, surgically
           bomb couple places and leaves, and suffers no consequences
           afterward.  Just like most people don't think much of our
           relationship with Iran has nothing to do with the fact that we
           overthrow their government for oil in the past.

2/16    In Iran, Danish pastries now called "Roses of the Prophet Muhammad".
        http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060216/D8FQD2FOB.html
        \_ Congrats to Iran, they've proven their leaders are just as juvenile
           as ours.
           \_ What was it that clued you in, the pastry thing, the last 25
              years of "must destroy Israel", the head slapping, what?  -John

2/6     Iran asks the IAEA to cease "all voluntarily suspended non-legally
        binding measures", which includes:
        - Removal of all surveillance cameras and seals, by the end of next
          week
        - Sharp reduction in number of inspectors and types of inspections
          (including surprise inspections), effective immediately
        - Formal date for resumption of full-scale enrichment, with some
          ("voluntary"?) IAEA inspector oversight
        http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060206/ap_on_re_eu/nuclear_agency_iran
        \_ We should send in DELTA FORCE in inspector outfits and take out their
           nuke labs.
           \_ We should send in LANDSHARK.  -John
              \_ Candygram!
        - Sharp reduction in number of inspectors and types of inspections
          (including surprise inspections), effective immediately
        - Formal date for resumption of full-scale enrichment, with some
          ("voluntary"?) IAEA inspector oversight
        http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060206/ap_on_re_eu/nuclear_agency_iran

1/31    New Iran development, see bottom:
        - Iran breaks seals, announces resumption of enrichment research
                                             \_ You continue to fail to
                                                understand my point.  I did
                                                not say it was a "good" ruling.
        - West condemns Iran, support move to Security Council
        - Iran condemns West, threatens full-scale enrichment upon referral
        - Russia/China upset, but don't support move to Security Council
        - Russia highlights enrichment in Russia
        - ... Days tick away to IAEA board meeting ...
        - Iran says Russian enrichment plan "positive"
        Last Thu-Fri:
        - West (including U.S.) fully endorses Russian enrichment plan
        - Iran says of Russian plan "capacity of the program not sufficient ...
          can be revised to be more complete"
        - Iran allows IAEA visits to Lavizan military site
        Today:
        - China and Russia sign on to statement with EU3 + U.S. saying
          they support reporting Iran to UN Security Council in a IAEA vote
          Thursday.  Sec Council will consider issue in March after formal
          IAEA report is delivered.
        \_ Your timeline would be useful except you drop key points.  Like
           you say Iran allows IAEA visits to Lavizan, but you leave out
           the part that it was a limited visit and they weren't allowed to
           see everything they wanted to see which is why they got referred
           to the Security Council.  If you're going to bother, do it right.
           \_ OP might have an agenda.
              \_ op does not have an agenda.  BTW, Iran is not getting sent
                 to the Sec Council because of Lavisan restrictions, even
                 if they were in place, which is why I didn't mention them
                 and also the fact that Lavisan has been "cleaned" ahead of
                 time.  If you want to jump to conclusions at least get it
                 right. -op
           \_ Restrictions on Lavizan (which had already been "cleaned") is
              not why Iran is getting referred to the Sec Council.  If you
              say someone is wrong, please try to get it right. -op
              \_ op does not have an agenda. -op
              \_ Convenient that you forget to mention it.  If I'm wrong, go
                 ahead and prove it.  It's your timeline.  Post a real time
                 line with all the facts or dont bother.  Anything less and
                 you might as well just keep it to a few lines of whatever
                 your agenda is and save us the false appearance of historical
                 honesty spread across 20+ lines.
                 \_ Let's keep this discussion very focused.
                    You said restrictions on Lavizan is why Iran is getting
                    referred to the Sec Council.  Do you still stand by this?
                    \_ Stop being clever.  Post your link.  I said what I
                       said.  Either way, your 'timeline' stated that Iran
                       allowed the IAEA to 'visit' which is only technically
                       correct.  They were not allowed to look at everything
                       they needed to look at which is not in your timeline
                       which makes your version of history make the Iranians
                       look accomodating when they're not.  Focus, indeed.
                       \_ All you needed to say was, "Yes."
                          I mentioned that Russia and China were going to
                          support a move to the Sec Council, and I kind of
                          assumed the reader would realize, "Oh, if China and
                          Russia are on-board (even with the fact that China
                          gets 14% of its oil from Iran), maybe Lavizan was
                          just a dishonest attempt to divide the other side"?
                          You know, I think I just should have written, "Yes,
                          you're absolutely right that Lavizan was a diversion,
                          but the reason why the case is being moved to the UN
                          is because of the resumption of enrichment research.
                          I omitted the Lavizan detail because I kind of
                          assumed the reader would recognize and even post
                          about this."  I should have written that instead of
                          getting all pissed off about a random sodan
                          attacking me.
           \_ Restrictions on Lavizan is not why Iran is getting referred
              to the Sec Council.  If you want to make a statement, make
              sure it's correct. -op
                          \_ Ok then.  I just want to see history kept straight
                             if history is being posted.  IMO, Lavizan wasn't
                             an easily dismissed detail; I think it was quite
                             important.  I'm happy to leave it at that.
                                -- random sodan
                             \_ Not really dismissed, but I kind of assumed
                                the reader would realize it was a diversion --
                                that Iran would not be giving genuinely helpful
                                info re Lavisan access, given China/Russia's
                                support for move to the UN.  I kind of just got
                                pissed off when the post came with an attack
                                on me too.

1/23    http://csua.org/u/eqr
        Iran's "president" Ahmadinejad in front of an interesting painting.

1/21    "India must not allow itself to be dragooned into joining the
         Washington-led nuclear lynch mob against Iran," The Hindu, one
         of India's most influential newspapers, cautioned Thursday.
         http://tinyurl.com/baa48
         Iran Sanctions Could Drive Oil Past $100
         Looks like US and Bush admin addiction to oil is compromising
         our abililty to impose sanctions without hurting ourselves.
         $100 oil will tip US into recession.
         \_ Trolling at its finest.
         \_ Simple answer--India wants gas.  Iran has lots of it.  Viz.
            China and Sudan.  -John
            \_ Iran supplys something like 18% of petro to China.  and
               Iran is only major oil-producing nation which China has
               big investment in it.   To ask China to mess around with
               Iran is like asking USA to mess around with Saudi's.
               \_ Sort of my point, isn't it?  The only difference is that
                  some nations exhibit more scruples about the types of
                  government maintained by their energy suppliers (at least
                  when it suits them to do so.)  -John
                  \_ absolute monarchy which export extreme version of Islam?
                     FYI, China deals a lot of nasty government for its
                     energy needs (Sudan, for example).  But Iran is *NOT*
                     one of those 'nasty' governments.
                     \_ I'm pretty sure everyone here but you would consider
                        mainland China to be one of those 'nasty' governments.
                     \_ Uhm, wow...chicom troll doublethink at its finest.
                     \_ Chicom troll, I am sad.  After all my intensive troll
                        training, your reading comprehension still equals your
                        grammar skills and no more.  -John
                        \_ care to explain how US-Saudi relationship is morally
                           more superior than China-Iran relationship?
                           ^more
                           \_ Why should I?  You did catch the "when it suits
                              them" part, right?  You may also have noted a
                              mildly sarcastic tone in my post.  Back to
                              reading comp 101, grasshopper.  -John
         \_ To the person worried about Pakistan as a greater proliferation
            threat than Iran, one of the key problems with Iran getting
            nukes is they're a terrorist state and, unlike Pakistan, would
            be very likely to try directly or help their proxy terrorist
            armies smuggle a nuke into some other country's harbor.  There
            can't be any retaliation for such an act since it would be
            impossible to prove who nuked the city.  That city could be any
            coastal city with a port (all of them) in the world, or any city
            reachable easily by land due to lax boarders.  "Iran getting a
            nuke just isn't that big a deal" is a stupid concept for this and
            many other reasons.  This whole thread is troll heaven.  Have fun.
            \_ Iran is not a terrorist state.  They support certain group to
            \_ Iran is *NOT* a terrorist state.  They support certain group to
               achieve their foreign policy.  If anything, USA has outdo Iran
               in Afganstan in the 1980s, both in terms of amount of money
               involved, and the degree of extremism which the group receiving
               the aid.  Iran, though eccentric from our point of view, is
               nevertheless a rational State.  No rational state would give
               out nuclear weapon to any group just because chances of getting
               backfired is very high.  Pakistan is a problem because their
               intelligent service, one of the best in the world, has close
               tie to Pushtuns/Taliban in Afganistan.  N.Korea is a problem
               because they have an army which is one million strong but
               could barely eat two meals a day... and that they don't
               really need any delivery mechanism to do some harm across the
               38th parallel.  By comparison, Iran is a much less of a problem,
               as their youth is demanding more and more reform and open policy
               in the near future.
            \- It is extremely unlikely any state would as *a matter of policy*
               give away nukes. Schelling and Waltz [see links below] agree
               with this position and the scenario you spell out seems
               ridiculous ... iran would give one of its only nukes to a
               "terrorist army" to do whatever it wanted with it ... something
               that doesnt really advance iranian state aims in any concrete
               way but does run massive risks of getting caught and in
               which case iran faces a gret likelihood of this getting traced
               back to them. so the "policy" of xfer to terrorists scenario
               is not likely. the "loose nukes" -> terrorists scenario seems
               more likely and the more reasonable threats there are russia
               [lots of nukes], pak [state meltdown] or nkorea selling nuke
               tech. again the issue isnt "should we be happy or sad about
               iran getting nukes" but "what should he us policy be" and
               the policy formation stage depends on your beliefs about how
               this changes iran's "intentions and capabilities".
         \- What does a nuclear Iran with a small number of bombs with
            limited delivery options let Iran do that it cant do now,
            except significantly deter say bombing Tehran. This is a
            serious question and I have some ideas but I want to hear
            what other people think first. --thehindu@soda
            \_ much of US' attitude toward Iran is irrational.  We
               overthrow their democratic government in the 1950's, then
               the Shah we installed got overthrown, and we were angry at
               Iran ever since.  So, answer your question, a nuclear
               Iran is probably less problematic than Nuclear N.Korea or
               Pakistan.   By the way, India were on the side of USA last
               time UN voted on this matter.
                    \- i didnt ask "why is the us concerned about iran"
                       [which would be a foreign policy question], i asked
                       "how is the iran+nukes scenario different from
                       the iran-nonukes scenario" which is a question
                       about prediction or capabilities. anyway, one
                       scenario which i suppose is possible is that
                       the new iranian leader will feel a little more
                       emboldened to pursue low level terrorism sponsorship
                       [unlike libya or syria now] with nukes than without.
                       btw, aside from anti-western fatatics, you can hardly
                       blame reasonable iranians for being pissed off about
                       how the us handled the aftermath of the vincennes
                       shooting down the iranian airliner.
               \_ Hi pro-Iranian Troll!  No one gave a shit about the Shah.
                  Are you totally unaware of that little thing we called
                  The Hostage Crisis that went on for a few hundred days?
                  \_ no one give a shit about Shah?  The demand *WAS* about
                     1. apologize the overthrow of Mosaddeq and
                     2. hand over Shah back to Iran so USA won't try to
                        install him again.
                     This is typical... memory selectively failed on
                     all the wrong doings beforehand, then react violently
                     to the repercussion in the name of self-defense.
            \_ Threaten to hit southern Europe.  I don't understand how this
               isn't obvious.
               \_ why Iran want to bomb southern Europe again?  it's not
                  obvious at all.
                  \_ I'll rephrase it from the other point of view: if you
                     were in south europe would it concern you if the crazies
                     in Iran got nukes?  (yes, you're in reach in S.E.)  Crazy
                     people should not have nukes.  That should be obvious.
                     \_ it is *NOT* obvious that Iran is a "crazy" state.
                        Just because USA doesn't like Iran doesn't make it
                        crazy.  There are plenty of nations having plenty of
                        normal bilateral relationships with Iran.  They are
                        no less / no more diff than any other countries in the
                        region.  In fact, if anything, Iran is a much normal
                        state than, let say, Saudi Arabia.
                        \_ BUD DAY does *NOT* like your tone, son.
               \- So if Iran gets 10 nuclear bombs they may threaten
                  to nuke Athens? Rome? Nice? Can you spell out this
                  obvious scenario a little more? I would be helpful
                  if you signed your name since I want to know if I am
                  speaking to the same person in a followup. Just out of
                  curiosity, why isnt Pakistan interested in hitting
                  southern europe. Obviously it is implicit in my question
                  "what could they do and would have some interest in
                  doing".
                  \_ I think I'm being trolled so my answer will be brief:
                     Pakistan is a secular dictatorship who wants nukes
                     because their long term enemy next door has them.
                     Pakistan also doesn't have the range to hit most of India
                     much less Europe so that isn't an issue even if they
                     wanted to do so.
                     Iran is run by religious fundmentalist Muslims who
                     believe it is their duty to spread their form of Islam
                     over the entire world.
                     Europe is a secular super nation/state and happens to be
                     the closest interesting area to Iran.
                     Finally, what is the point of asking for my name when you
                     don't give yours?  How do I know any responses will be
                     you?
                     \_ Two additions.  They are willing to spread Islam
                        by murder/conquest if necessary, and they seem to
                        think it would be a good idea to nuke Israel. -!pp
                        \_ you are mixing up Iran with Saudi Arabia.
                           Further, USA spread democracy by murder/conquest if
                           necessary too, right?
                           \_ When did you stop beating your wife?
                              \_ My eyes, they see only happy things!
                                 \_ You and chicom troll, man.  Maybe you
                                    should switch to a lower dosage....
            \_ Some possibilities that I can think of:
               1. Nuke strategic targets in Israel. I do not think that
                  Iran has sufficient conventional weapons that can be
                  delivered as far as Israel and cause serious damage.
               2. Give the nukes to Iran friendly factions currently
                  fighting in Iraq or Afganistan. Iran's conventional
                  capability, again, is probably insufficient to signif-
                  icantly affect American forces.
               3. Give the nukes to Pakistan for use against India (or
                  perhaps direct use against India).
               --yaHindu@soda.
                        \_ Seriously, each of your points are so dumb,
                           you really need to stay out of this discussion.
                           What does a faction struggling for political
                           control need a nuclear bomb for?  Given that
                           Pakistan already has nukes and Iran doesn't,
                           doesnt it seem a little odd to be talking about
                           Iran -> Pak nuke xfer.  And what does Iran get out
                           of seriously pissing off India?  Are you are troll
                           or are you an idiot?  To be ignorant of politics
                           is ok, but to be so dumb as to wade into a
                           conversation where you have no grasp of any of
                           the relevant facts, is just ...
                           the relevant fact, is just ...
                           India and Iran are on decent terms.  Khatami was
                           the guest of honor at the 2003 Republic Day
                           festivities. Later this week, this year's chief
                           guest will be the Saudi king.
               \_ Do you seriously think there would be anything left of
                  the place formerly known as "Iran" within several hours
                  of a nuclear attack on Israel?  Israel almost certainly
                  \- or france, or italy or ...
                  has the H-bomb, and presumably already has everything in
                  Iran targeted with the finger on the button, and one would
                  imagine that Iran knows this.  I would also hope, as an
                  American, that if they ever used a nuclear weapon on Israel
                  and  Israel was unable to retaliate for some reason, that
                  the U.S. would level their country.
                  \_ Do you seriously think the nutheads running Iran share
                     your belief in Mutally Assured Destruction theories or
                     your western view of the value of life?  Willing to bet
                     a few million lives on it?  Not even the Iranians are
                     willing to try to push that line.  Their entire public
                     stance is that this is about peaceful energy sources
                     for their own country which is a crock since they're
                     the fourth largest oil producer in the world and have
                     relatively tiny energy needs.
                                \- yes the public stance is a lie but the
                                   bush administration also knew that the
                                   steel tarriffs were illegal. and the us
                                   signing on to plank ii of the NPT is also
                                   a "crock". the rhetoric is not important.
                                   whether you would choose to bet on it is
                                   also not important, since preventing this
                                   is not a free choice. the question is
                                   what should the us do about it, and then
                                   three categories are accept that it will
                                   happen [not necesarily quietly], try to
                                   prevent it without military action, try
                                   to prevent it with military action.
                                   i personally think the us will not be able
                                   to prevent iran from getting nukes although
                                   it is possible some actions can make it
                                   take say 10yrs instead of 5. i also dont
                                   think the mullahs actually in power are
                                   as irrational as you seem to think they are.
                                   this isnt an especially great interview
                                   but it is from a long time commentator on
                                   nukes who isnt a liberal fruitcake on this
                                   exactly question. BTW Schelling also won the
                                   Econ nobel last year, in part for this work
                                   on nuclear deterrence theory:
                                     http://csua.org/u/eql
                                   After stumbling on that article i searched
                                   for some other good names. see the last
                                   page of this article:
                                     http://csua.org/u/eqm
                                  Nicely put: "the us worries as much
                                  about being deterred as being attacked".
                                  Well i dunno about the "as much" but
                                  if you factor probabilities in, that is
                                  probably true. Waltz is ex-UCB and
                                  "The world's most influential International
                                  Relations scholar" and "most cited book
                                  ever written in the field of International
                                  Relations". Mearshimer is also a pretty
                                  interesting fellow. Allison is a little
                                  airy-fairy. Jervis is solid. I am not
                                  familar with the other fellow.
                                   BTW, do you think the people advocating
                                   SDI dont believe in MAD? do you think they
                                   are willing to bet millions of lives on
                                   SDI/ABM technology?
                                  Relations scholar" and author of "the most
                                  cited book ever written in the field of
                                  International Relations". Mearshimer is
                                  also a pretty interesting fellow. Allison
                                  is a little airy-fairy. Jervis is solid.
                                  I am not familar with the other fellow.
                  \- look the "iran nukes X" scenario is ridiculous.
                     one thing that is possible is they will be
                     emboldened to more aggressively pursue low level
                     terrorism and figure the US is less likely to
                     bomb tehran in retaliation [along the likes of
                     Raygun bombing Khadafi]. i actually think the pakistani
                     bomb is more dangerous than the iran bomb because
                     a meltdown of the pakistani state in the crazy direction
                     is a lot more likely and then you may have loose nukes.
                     if pakistan has a meltdown in the next 10 yrs ... say
                     their maximum leader is assassinated and different
                     military generals start a violent struggle and one
                     tries to ally with a fundamentalist faction ... it will
                     be an interesting question whether india or the united
                     states will freak out more.
                     \_ How would a "meltdown of the pakistani state in the
                        crazy direction" look any different from what Iran
                        already is?
                        \- iran is not an anarchy. i would worry more about
                           the period of anarchy than the aftermath. that's
                           what i mean by "loose nukes". nuclear weapons are
                           good for deterring threats against the homeland.
                           the big problem with the is the problem of
                           accidents and proliferation to non-state actors.
                           what effects nukes have lower of the "ladder of
                           escalation" is unclear. like would the iran-
                           iraq war have looked different if one side had
                           5-10 bombs? i dont think that is clear. if both
                           sides had 5-10 nukes do you think it would have
                           happened at all?
                           \_ Pakistan is a different issue and is not
                              currently 3 months from having nukes running
                              around loose.  And even if Pakistan was in
                              the midst of chaos the Iran situation would
                              remain a problem and need to be dealt with.
                              I don't understand this "we can only deal with
                              or think about one problem at a time and the
                              worst problem makes the second worst problem
                              ok and acceptable by comparison."  This sort of
                              deflection is the second weakest form of
                              rhetorical debate tactic.
                              \- i'm not the one saying "we can only
                                 deal with one problem at a time" and i
                                 am not sure anybody else here is.
                                 my position is:
                                 1. i think iran will get nukes
                                 2. i think from their point of view it makes
                                    sense for them to get nukes [just like it
                                    makes sense for pakistan and the israelis,
                                    and note "makes sense/is rational" !=
                                    "is a good thing/makes me happy"]
                                 3. i would personally be more worried about
                                    the PAK nukes[#4], but that is a estimation
                                    of risks not a policy prescription ...
                                    i might think Las Vegas real estate will
                                    do better than Phoenix real estate but
                                    that doesnt mean i am suggesting buying
                                    into Vega$.
                                 4. in gereral i think the concern about
                                    proliferation is really about "loose
                                    nukes" rather than states we dont line
                                    having the bomb. so the problem is
                                    stability and competence more than
                                    ideology.
                                  [once again, you may wish to see the
                                  adelphi paper "the spread of nuclear weapons,
                                  more may be better", written by a now
                                  fmr ucb prof kenneth waltz.]
                                  5. sure iran is doing lots of lying but
                                     guess what, that's standard in diplomacy.
                                     if country A asks country B, are you
                                     spying on us, what are they supposed to
                                     do, answer the question completely and
                                     truthfully? when the us signed the non-
                                     proliferation treaty which says the
                                     nuclear states should eventually be
                                     pursuing the goal of total disarmamanet
                                     did the us lie?
            \_ Sell their oil to whomever they wish, continue with theocracy
               without fear of US inteference, etc. Nukes are a deterrent.
               They say leave us the hell alone.
               \_ No one is invading Iran.  Their 18 year effort to get nukes
                  and the lies they've told about it are not about getting a
                  deterrent.
                  \_ Instead of speaking in negatives, how about explaining
                     what Iran is doing, then?
                  \_ Various elements in the Bush Administration have
                     threatened Iran with invasion and Bush included them
                     in his "axis of evil" so I think it is reasonable that
                     they are concerned about an invasion. If things had
                     gone well in Iraq, Bush proabably would have invaded
                     Iran by now.

1/12    Iran all of a sudden says they want to talk now
        http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/01/12/D8F3BVG01.html
        \_ Talk about a play right out of the North Korean handbook.
           \_ True, but all the major players are at a consensus that they
              don't want Iran to have The Bomb, and are also in a position
              to actually punish Iran with economic sanctions -- unlike
              N. Korea, which is already isolated anyway so that the effect
              of sanctions would be diminished, and was a whole big mess
              with S. Korea and China not on the same page as the U.S.
              And you know what?  I credit international diplomacy.
                \_ You credit diplomacy with accomplishing what?
              The EU3 played a role because they want to negotiate first.
              The U.S. played a role because they pushed the EU3 to put
              teeth and a real stick into the negotiations along with the
              carrots.  They moderated each other.
              The IAEA is playing a role because their inspectors are actually
              there, monitoring critical equipment.
              Russia, China, and Annan are playing roles by acting as
              Iran's good buddies, telling Iran that they won't stop the West
              from imposing sanctions (which opens the door to other things),
              until they finally realize they can't play this game anymore.
              This game is playing out as best as it could, IMO.
              \_ oohhh, like good cop/bad cop?
                 \_ Yeah, Russia/China/Annan = good cop ; U.S.+EU3 = bad cop
                    The U.S. needed to infect the EU3 in order for them to
                    become the bad cop.
                    \_ Perhaps I'm an idiot, but what does the 3 in EU3
                       stand for?
                       \_ UK, Germany, France
              \_ Iran supplies close to 20% of China's oil need.  I am not
                 sure China is playing good cop, or is that China is simply
                 don't want to mess around with its main oil supplier (similar
                 to US would never mess with Saudis).  Further, IAEA and EU and
                 USA all have credibility problem.  If IAEA/EU/USA allow
                 India/Pakistan/Israel/N.Korea to have the bomb, why can't
                 Iran join the club?
                 \_ This is a stupid question, I hope you see why.
                    \_ no, I don't.
                       \_ Well, first off, IAEA/EU/USA didn't "allow" any
                          of those countries to get the bomb (except MAYBE
                          Israel, but I'm not even sure they "officially"
                          have the bomb, although they obviously have had
                          it for > 20 years).  Those counties got the bomb
                          secretly.  Can you honestly say the US
                          "allowed" NK to get the bomb?  Those are all
                          considered failures of the anti-nuclear
                          proliferation programs.
                          Furthermore, we don't like Iran, and we don't
                          trust them.  It's perfectly reasonable to try to
                          stop them from getting the bomb.  Sure, that's a
                          subjective measurement, but so is everything.
                          Whether 9/11 was good or bad is also subjective.
              \_ You credit diplomacy with accomplishing what?
                 \_ "This game is playing out as best as it could, IMO."
                 \_ "Our job is to form a common consensus.  This is what's
                    called diplomacy." -GW Bush, Genius (Jan 13, 2006)
                    \_ So the success here was getting the EU to go along with
                       the idea that being in range of Iranian nukes is a bad
                       situation?  In the meantime, they've broken the seals,
                       and restarted (if they ever stopped) working on a nuke.
                       Yay diplomacy!

1/12    Iran: Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
        http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=5183
        \_ Damn that is fucked up.
           \_ Ya it is. It's not stated in the article but I'm guessing that
              the rapists (intended rapists?) were probably part of some
              self-appointed militia that was "defending Islam". In Iran, it's
              illegal to be in public with a member of the opposite sex who is
              not close family (1st cousins often marry, so that's not
              allowed).
           \_ on top of it, how come some lunatic managed to become the
              president?
              \_ because it's a religious state and he's the biggest supporter
                 of that sort of thing going back decades?
                 \_ Because he's a fundamentalist politician with a history of
                    anti-corruption and  standing up for the poor. That doesn't
                    mean he's not a nutjob, but it sort of explains the
                    appeal to the voters.
                    \_ It also helps when the religious nut heads who actually
                       run the country decide who is and is not allowed to run
                       in an election.
                       \_ Excellent point. --pp

1/10    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/10/international/10cnd-iran.html
        Iran about to cross the "red line", breaking seals and announcing they
        will introduce uranium gas ino a research centrifuge.  According to an
        IAEA official, if Iran uses that centrifuge, the pilot research would
        allow Iranian scientists "to acquire the knowledge and the ability" to
        do enrichment at any level.
        (The previous breaking of seals was for uranium conversion, which was
        uranium ore -> uranium gas, which is relatively low-tech.)
        My prediction is that they'll let the centrifuge sit unsealed, but
        won't actually spin it with uranium gas inside.  If they do ... this
        would be their "all-in" bet.  This latest move is a big raise, to
        continue that analogy.
        \_ They already crossed the line.
           http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/01/10/D8F1T2NO3.html
           \_ It is one red line to many people to break those seals, I agree,
              and the West is acting hella pissed off ... but in my book, the
              real red line is actually spinning a (research) centrifuge with
              uranium gas, at which point the West+Russia will *be* more hella
              pissed off than acting that way.
        \_ Iran is doing the best it can to get the EU and the US on the same
        key for a change. They just might succeed.

1/2     Next on our target list:  Iran.  This war on terror thing is getting
        better and better!
        http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=10415
        After we hit them, only way Iran can hit us back is to support
        terrorist activities against USA... then, we can claiming that
        the pre-emptive strike against Iran is justified because it supports
        terrorist organization... I love this.
        \_ So, what would you suggest we do about Iran?
           \_ leave them alone, just like what we've done to Pakistein,
              India, Israel and North Korea.
              \- Do you mean India -> Hindustein

12/14   Following up on an earlier thread... "Iran President: Holocaust is
        a 'Myth'"  http://csua.org/u/eb0
        \_ in other news, aliens land in Terran
           \_ Soon they'll land in Protoss and Zerg

12/5    http://csua.org/u/e66 (Washington Post, Aug 2 2005)
        "A major U.S. intelligence review has projected that Iran is about a
        decade away from manufacturing the key ingredient for a nuclear weapon
        ... in line with recently revised British and Israeli figures."
        http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/article331219.ece (Dec 4 2005)
        "Although IAEA officials have said it would take at least two years for
        Natanz to become fully operational, Mr ElBaradei believes that once the
        facility is up and running, the Iranians could be 'a few months' away
        from a nuclear weapon."
        http://csua.org/u/e67 (jpost.com, Dec 5 2005)
        "IAEA chairman Muhammad ElBaradei on Monday confirmed Israel's
        assessment that Iran is only a few months away from creating an atomic
        bomb."
        So, uh ... what exactly changed between August 2nd, 2005 and now?
        \_ Nothing has changed - the IAEA has always been completely inept.
        \_ Nothing has changed - the IAEA has always been completely inept as
           have most of our politicized intelligence agencies (e.g. State
           and the CIA, glaringly exposed in the Plame case).
           It should not be any surpise then that we missed WTCI and II,
           Pakistan, India, Libya, Cole, Sudan, WMD in GWI, etc...
           The point is not whether Iran is months away from a bomb, they
           probably have that now.  Rather, the key question is whether they
           have a nuclear tipped Shahab-3.
           probably have that now.  Rather, the key question is
           whether they have a nuclear tipped Shahab-3.
           Those nuclear bunker busters and theater missile defense sure
           sound like a good idea now eh?
           Thank you Jimmy Carter
           \_ bunkerbuster bombs dont work, study your physics.
              \_ Yeah, I'm sure those dead people agree.
              \_ tell that to all those women and children hiding in the
                 baby milk factory.
                 \_ I'm glad you brought that up. Those signs looked
                    believable to me.
                    \_ What?  You don't believe a sign written in English in
                       the middle of Iraq that says, "BABY MILK FACTORY! DO
                       NOT BOMB HERE YOU EVIL AMERICAN PIG DOGS!"?
           \_ I would agree that IAEA is completely inept.  I mean, they
              should of pressure USA and Russia to disarm their nuclear
              weapons as part of the deal too.  Instead, it is single-mindly
              focusing on those who want to join the nuclear club.
              \_ Uhm... what?
        \_ Dunno but guessing: new intelligence info?  The world isn't static.
        \_ Maybe the recent story about Iran buying nuclear tech from North
           Korea for oil
           \_ This post is so partisan I don't know what to say.
              \_ Yeah, he forgot the part about the CIA missing the fall of
                 the USSR, since spying on the Soviets and knowing what was
                 going on was the reason for the CIA to exist the last 50+
                 years.
                 \_ you didn't know that USA and Russia suppose to disarm as
                    part of NPT, don't you?
                    \_ you mean article 6?  re-read it.
        \_ honestly, I don't see any danger of Iran having nuclear weapon.
           If anything, India/Pakistein poses more danger simply because one
                                \- is that the Jewish part of Pakistan?
           of them have the incentive to use it in a conflict.

10/20   Powell fucks Dick
        http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/002492.html#002492
        "a plea bargain process has evidently been opened with Vice President
        Cheney's lawyer ... Powell ... showed that memo only to two people--
        president and vice president. ... Powell testified about this exchange
        in great length to the grand jury ... Powell appeared convinced that
        the vice president played a focal role in disclosing plame's undercover
        status."
        \_ Is it possible to overdose on schadenfreude?
           \_ On the contrary, my mom is convinced that when my grandmother
              was dying of a degenerative brain disease back in the 70's,
              that Watergate-related shadenfreude added months to her life.
              She was a Trotskyist, and of course loathed Nixon.
           \_ Could the "schadenfreude" guy please give it a rest? The only
              reason any of us gain any bit of enjoyment in what's happening
              is in the possibly naive hope that America will wake up and
              vote these corrupt, incompetent and treasonous clowns out of
              power.

9/24    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050924/ap_on_re_mi_ea/nuclear_agency_iran
        IAEA votes to refer Iran to UN Security Council.  In order to obtain
        abstentions from China and Russia, language specifying "sanctions" and
        including a specific date were dropped.
        \_ how about N.Korea?

9/15    US Deploys Powerpoint slides against Iran
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/13/AR2005091301837.html
        \_ See, last time we used presentation boards.  Powerpoint is MUCH more
           reliable.
        \_ How about India/Pakistan/N.Korea/Israel?  Why pick on Iran?
           Mind you that:
           - Iran is much larger country than Iraq
           - Iran is China's main oil supplier, and China's effort to
             diverse its oil supply kind of killed by USA couple months ago.
           - UN Security Council
           - China sits in UN Security Consoul...

8/10    FYI, Iran broke IAEA seals on equipment that's used in the first half
        of the fuel cycle today.  Earlier this week they had resumed work
        without breaking seals.
        Can you say:  EU3 and U.S. bluff called?
        \_ In other news, I'm now getting propaganda spam about this.
           \_ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/08/10/nuclear_spam_trojan
              \_ Aiyahhh. Thank you.

8/8     Iran resumes fuel cycle work
        http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0809/p02s01-wogi.html
        My interpretation:
        (1) Iran has just successfully called the bluff of both the EU3 and
            the U.S., or,
        (2) The U.S. really does want to refer Iran to the Security Council,
            impose sanctions, and gear up for war in ~ 2-3 years.
        My solution had been to create a schedule whereby Iran /could/
        perform different stages of the fuel cycle until after some number of
        years they could do the whole thing, but hey, if we want to do (1)
        first that's fine by me, and if the U.S. wants to do (2), well ...
        I guess we'll find the troops to do it somehow.
        \_ They'll just draft CSUAers and conservative bloggers.

8/8     Iran resumes fuel cycle work
        http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0809/p02s01-wogi.html

8/2     That's pretty funny.  Last week Iran said they would resume uranium
        enrichment.  Dubya called them on that.  Iran backed down.  Then
        we have reports yesterday of the National Intelligence Estimate saying
        the consensus is that Iran is 10 years away from a nuclear weapon -- at
        best.  Now Iran today says, fuggit, we're enriching.
        Diplomacy at work!

6/22    Was this U2 shot down over Iran?
        http://csua.org/u/cgw
        \_ If you don't know, how would any of us know?
        \_ Which is better, U2 or SR-71?
           \_ SR-71, or originally RS-71, and before that A-12, was better
              but now is retired.
              \_ Huh?  The A-12 was never built, and it wasn't a
                 reconnaissance plane.
              \_ Hmmm.. this guy seems to think the SR-71 is back in
                 service.  Has anyone heard that before?
                 http://www.area51zone.com/aircraft/sr71.shtml
                 \_ The SR-71 program was cancelled in the late 80s/early 90s,
                    reactivated around 1994, and re-deactivated in the late
                    90s. NASA also used them for a while to escort landing
                    Space Shuttles, since they were the only things fast
                    enough to keep up with the re-entry speeds. -gm
                    \_ Why were landing Space Shuttles escorted?  It's not like
                       the escorting planes could do something when things went
                       wrong on the Shuttles.
                       \_ I think it was to perform visual inspections for
                          damage, that sort of thing. Maybe also to measure
                          wind and such, since the Shuttles are just really big
                          gliders. -gm

6/16    For those who want to push democracy worldwide and bitch Iran
        being member of "axis of evil,"  Do you even realize that Iran
        has a very lively democracy and they are holding their presidential
        election this Friday?
        \_ anyone remotely familiar with the gov of iran knows that the
           theocratic body can over rule any decision of elected
           representatives at any time.  so either you're ignorant
           or a troll.
        \_ The Democaracy is very weak in Iran. The ultimate authority still
           lies with the mullahs. The president is very weak and mullahs
           get to decide who can run for a seat in Iranian parlament.
           Last year, they prevented a couple of thousand candidates from
           running from not being faithful enough to the priciples of their
           running for not being faithful enough to the priciples of their
           revolution. The mullahs also can pretty much veto anything.
        \_ Hahaha.  Do you realize that people who wish to run in the
        \_ Hahaha.  Do you realize that the only people who run in the
           elections must be approved by the mullahs?  Imagine if Bush got
           to decide who ran in all the elections, state, city, senate,
           house, etc. Would you call that a "lively democracy?" (Oh, and
           Bush has been made supreme leader, he cannot be taken from
           office.  No elections for him.)
           \_ it's a different form of democracy.  Why don't you bitch
              about Britian's upper house are appointed?
              \_ Freedom is slavery!  Despotism is democracy!
           house, etc. Would you call that a "lively democracy?"
              \_ kngharv is funny.
              \_ AFAIK, the house of lords does not directly influence
                 gov policy (except as relates to certain judicial appeals).
              \_ It's _not_ a "different kind of democracy".  By your
                 definition, the Soviet Union was a "different kind of
                 democracy", as was the US before letting women and blacks
                 vote.  Newspapers are regularly shut down, people beaten,
                 imprisoned and killed for voicing anti-government opinions,
                 an unelected self-perpetuating system (council of guardians,
                 supreme leader) has the possibility of vetoing all electoral
                 candidates and laws, and the revolutionary guard/interior
                 ministry holds the implied threat of violence over everyone's
                 head.  But hey, I guess Zimbabwe is a "different kind of
                 democracy" too.  -John
                 \_ threat of violence, though illegal by Red Cross standard,
                    is sactioned by USA and routinely praticed.
                 \_ these are human right issue, which is independent from
                    the issue of democracy.  Iran has supreme leader,
                    USA has electral college and life-term supreme court
                    judges appointed by the president.    I am simply pointing
                    this out because Americans hate current Iranian regime,
                    and we often ignoring the fact that  Iran has one of
                    the most mature democracy in the Middle East.
                    \_ hehe. -- ilyas
                    \_ "mature"?  You are comparing to Syria, Egypt and
                       Saudi Arabia.  That's not a challenge.  Yes, the US
                       have lacked sound judgment in dealing with some aspects
                       of Iran.  That said, how do you treat a regime, one
                       part of which is strongly reformist but impotent, the
                       other of which openly sponsors terrorism and other
                       nasties?  Plus, your comparison to the US beggars
                       belief--the Supreme Court is appointed by an elected
                       official, its members approved by other elected
                       officials.  That said, the threat of violence is NOT
                       separate from the idea of democracy--democracy means,
                       essentially, one man one vote--if said man is
                       intimidated, or his vote fraudulently discounted, or
                       his elected officials rendered irrelevant, he is not
                       living in a democracy.  What is this, ChiCom Troll
                       goes Middle East?  -John
        \_ Democracy and freedom are relevant to the people when they have
           enough food, water, shelter, and stability in the community.
           In another word, most Middle Easterners don't really give a shit
           about freedom at this point since they don't even have enough basic
           necessities to even think about freedom. Americans talks about
           freedom as if it were the greatest thing on earth, and they're
           right because they already have basic necessities for life.
           However, freedom is not for everyone on this planet, especially
           for people who cannot even begin to think about freedom. You can't
           hand freedom to people and expect them to embrace it. People have
           to have basic necessities, and it is then that you can begin to
           talk about freedom and democracy. Giving freedom to the Iraqi
           people is like Microsoft donating billions of dollars worth of
           Windows XP licenses to starving African kids.
           \_ Interestingly, prosperity in the West developed in direct
              proportion to political freedom of the general populace, and
              the merchant and craftsman classes in particular.  Feudal
              serfs will not create prosperity. -- ilyas
              \_ is it also a coincident that all the prosperous
                 Western democracies were Imperial Power of 19th century?
                 \_ This is simply not true.  How about Scandinavian countries?
                    Prosperity enabled imperialism, not the other way around.
                      -- ilyas
                    Also, some countries that were neither prosperous, nor
                    'progressive' politically were imperialist (Russia).
                    I am calling Russia imperialist despite the fact that its
                    colonies were technically on a contiguous land mass with
                    the 'mainland.' This didn't really change the familiar
                    dynamic of imperialism.  Prosperity enabled imperialism
                    in the West, not the other way around.  -- ilyas
           \_ I have been saying that all along and no one listened.
              If you travel to China and look at their human right problem
              more closely, you will find that while political and religious
              dissidents get most of attentions, it is the human right of
              the dirt poor which are been routinely violated on a massive
              scale.  Given the dire economic circumstances, those dirt
              poor's human right are being violated in USA as well (e.g.
              homeless folks in People's Park).  The only differences
              between China and USA, is that China has 300 million of those
              who are at least as poor as Dwellers of People's Park.
              \_ I agree with the pp, (people need food and security
                 before they can really use freedom), but I don't really
                 agree with you.  You're making a pretty tenuous connection
                 between "The poors' human rights are routinely violated,"
                 and "prosperity a human right."  At least, I think that's
                 what you're saying.
                 \_ next time, check out how police evict homeless people
                    on the street, you will understand what do I mean.
                    \_ For my edification, please explain how exactly it is
                       possible to `evict someone on the street.' -dans
                       \_ He may be talking about the state-sponsored (or at
                          least done with the collusion of corrupt officials)
                          beatings and evictions of poor squatters in favor
                          of new factories or luxury homes.  -John
                          \_ I think the squatting phenomenon you're referring
                             to is much more prevalent in Europe, though I
                             have seen a handful of isolated incidents in the
                             New York area.  Regardless, `evict someone on the
                             street' still doesn't parse in any meaningful
                             way. -dans
                             \_ No, it doesn't exist at all here, nor do I
                                believe it's occurred recently in the US (or
                                in any civilized country.)  You are probably
                                referring to squatters who occupy buildings,
                                which sometimes ends up in a violent eviction.
                                Minor semantic difference, but these guys
                                usually squat as a form of protest, knowing
                                that the landlord will try to assert his claim
                                at some point in the future.  I was obliquely
                                referring to this riot in China last week:
                                http://tinyurl.com/dxrbh  Although to be fair,
                                they weren't even squatters, and similar
                                things have happened in Malaysia.  I suppose
                                op was talking about cops telling homeless
                                people to "move along".  -John
           \_ To me your argument seems to state that unless people have
              the necessities (food, water, shelter, &c.) freedom and
              democracy are irrelevant (or at least unnecessary)
              If this is true, why not round up all the people who don't
              have the necessities and stick them in a camp where someone
              provides all of these things to them?
              Of course the camp would be subject to the external control
              of the people providing the necessities and an individual
              in the camp would have no alternative but to live by the
              rules of the external parties.
              The question then is when will a man in the camp be deemed
              capable of having freedom? If the answer is when they have
              the "necessities", then I am led to ask, who decides when
              they have the "necessities" - can the people in the camp
              decide they have got enough and then opt for freedom or
              will the get freedom when the "enlightened" protectors
              decide it is appropriate?
              I think that it is apparent that they will never be given
              Freedom b/c they implicitly bargained it away in exchange
              for physical comfort. Knowing this, it would be wrong to
              give someone physical comfort before freedom.
        \_ Only to the left is the largest state sponsor of terror besides
           the Soviets over the past 3 decades a misunderstood democracry.
           the Soviets over the past 3 decades a misunderstood democracy.
           I'm sure the Lebanese feel just terrible about the
           misunderstanding.
           \_ huh?
              \_ exactly.

3/17    http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/03/17/el.baradei/index.html
        CNN interview today on Iran with IAEA head ElBaradei.
        Summary:
        North Korea is "an absolutely black hole" -- we know they have the
        plutonium for a bomb, but we don't know if they've built it into a
        bomb yet.  There are no technical hurdles now they have the plutonium.
        -- Iran, on the other hand, we don't think they have the plutonium or
        highly enriched uranium yet, and they have been cooperative.
        As long as we're talking, it's good.  The U.S. joining is wonderful.
        Enrichment should be limited to an "international consortium" --
        everyone needs to agree on an inclusive and fair system, so if a
        country wants enriched uranium for peaceful purposes, they can get it.
        No one's ruling out the possibility of Iran doing enrichment, but Iran
        has built a "confidence deficit" because of its "undeclared program" of
        the last 20 years.
        Translation:  Iran can enrich, but maybe in the future.
        (My interpretation:  Iran will settle for a plan whereby in x years,
        it can operate research centrifuges, after y years, enrich a certain
        amount, z years, enrich more.  There will be many, many folks
        in Dubya's admin that say x, y, and z should be undefined, or Iran
        should never enrich, but my gut feeling is that Dubya will settle,
        after much bargaining, for x >= 5 years, y >= 10 years, z >= 20 years.
        Included with such an agreement will be a ban on heavy-water reactors
        and other reactors that produce fissile material as a by-product.
        Freepers will scream and shout.)
        \_ Considering that Iran has had a (more or less) stable government
           for the last 15 years, I'd be less worried about them than
           Pakistan. The heavy water reactor is troubling, but given Western
           attitudes towards them, I understand Iran's goals. Hard call on
           this one.
           \_ Shrug.  If they proceed seriously with the heavy water reactor
              or enrichment, we at least call sanctions.  It's just a
              question of how many allies are with us at that point.
        \_ The IAEA is worthless.  Prior to GWI they issued even less
           urgent statements about Iraq.  Post GWI we learned Iraq was 18-
           24 months from a a bomb and had up to 20,000 researchers on the
           project.  Iran has been the largest state sponsor of terror, maybe
           after the USSR, over the past 25 years.  It's naive and completely
           irresponsible to trust them, but thanks to Dem. and leftist
           propaganda Iran is painted as a victim of imperialist American
           hegemony.
           \_ Name a Democratic defender of Iran.
              \_ Name one who will do anything about Iran.
                 \_ Answer the question.  What Democrat is painting Iran as
                    a victim of imperialist American hegemony?  -tom
                    \_ Uhm, anyone who is Iranian in origin and a democrat?
                       Duhhh? Talk about missing the point. But what can you
                       expect from tom? He walks in and the average IQ of
                       the room goes down a couple of points. -!PP
                       \_ I notice nobody has answer my question. !tom
           \_ Dubya FAA security was worthless pre-9/11.
              Everything changed after 9/11.
              (Hey, the excuse seemed to work for Dubya, who not for the IAEA)

3/10    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/11/politics/11iran.html
        "Europe and the United States have agreed on a joint approach to
        negotiating with Iran over its nuclear program after months of
        dispute, with the Bush administration agreeing to offer modest
        economic incentives and the Europeans agreeing to take the issue to
        the United Nations Security Council if negotiations fail, senior
        American officials said Thursday. The American incentives would go
        into effect only if Iran agreed to halt the enrichment of uranium
        permanently. The agreement represents a major shift in strategy for
        both the Bush administration, which has refused for years to offer
        Iran incentives to give up its program, and for Europe, which had been
        reluctant to discuss penalties."

3/3     http://csua.org/u/b8v (AP)
        So ... "diplomats" at an IAEA meeting today said Iran was "starting
        work" on half-mile deep tunnels of hardened concrete at their premier
        site for uranium enrichment.  The IAEA is pissed that Iran didn't tell
        them beforehand.
        Iran also just began construction of a heavy-water nuclear reactor at
        Arak.  Spent fuel from heavy-water reactors is much more easily
        converted to bomb-grade material.  This is in contrast to the Bushehr
        light-water reactor that Russia helped build.  The reactor material for
        light-water reactors is not easily converted to bomb-grade material,
        and anyway, Russia said they would cart it all away when they were
        done and monitor the stuff.
        Britain, France, and Germany asked Iran nicely not to build the
        heavy-water plant.
        So, uh .... what to do?
        \_ I know!  Let's abandon the people of Iraq and Afghanistan and spend
           another $200 billion getting ourselves into another horrible mess!
           What do I win?  -tom
           \_ Interestingly, this news came on the same day that Dubya was
              meeting Condi to talk about offering concessions to Iran to give
              the EU3 more leverage.
              the EU3 more leverage.  The concessions are:  not opposing Iran's
              WTO entry, and not opposing European sales of civilian aircraft
              parts to Iran; in exchange for:  Iran giving up uranium
              enrichment.  The Arak reactor would produce plutonium, which
              I believe doesn't need the laborious enrichment step of using
              hundreds of centrifuges.  And, as you might have guessed, heavy-
              water reactors use unenriched uranium as fuel.
              The Dubya-Condi meeting was announced at least five days in
              advance.
        \_ My prediction of how it will play out:
           Condi has told Dubya that he REALLY needs the world's support.
           The U.S. cannot go it alone on Iran.  Dubya trusts Condi.  She
           advised him to invade Iraq.  The U.S. will be on the same page as
           the EU3, and will try not to substantively undermine them.
           Iran will build its tunnels.  Iran will say it will never give up
           the right to enrich uranium.  There will be an understanding they
           won't do it though, nor build more centrifuges; there will be a set
           limit on centrifuge parts.  Arak will not be built.  Bushehr will
           go ahead as the original plan, maybe with plans for another one or
           two light-water reactors.
           The IAEA will periodically send people to look in the tunnels.
           Iran will receive support for WTO entry and other incentives.
           Freepers will scream and yell. -op
           \_ Nice "it could go like this analysis", even if it isn't very
              likely. Keep up the good work.
              \_ Well, I'm not saying this will be worked out in 6 months.
                 It could take years -- but I believe the U.S. will be
                 resolved to expend all possible options before bombing
                 or a full-scale invasion, the idea being it will need
                 its partners before a full-scale invasion, and bombing
                 would make the situation worse.
                 I do think my prediction is the most likely outcome,
                 and fortunately it seems like the best possible outcome
                 given the players.
                 If you really want to be optimistic, you could say that the
                 essential reason for this whole kissy-kissy make-friends-
                 with-Europe-again thing was a common understanding across
                 the ocean of the need for a united front on Iran. -op
                 \_ I wasn't being sarcastic. I liked your analysis.
                    \_ Yeah, I know.  I was just saying it could take a
                       while. -op
        \_ Okay, I'll also give you a possible "bad" situation:
           Iran says, screw you all, we know you can't do shit (what with
           the U.S. being overstretched, and Europe's people ousting their
           leaders if Blair/Chirac/Schroeder ask for war).
           The Security Council passes sanctions (with Russia and China
           abstaining), the U.S. bombs like crazy, a real coalition forms
           and invades Iran, but the common people in Europe and most
           Democrats are still mighty pissed, Iran becomes likes Iraq today.
           -op
        \_ Watch out there.
           Population of Iran >> Pop. of Iraq >> Pop. of Sunnis Iraq
           Same for land area.

2/16    "Iran Threatens to Shoot Down U.S. Drones" Why don't they just
        shoot it down? I take it they don't have the capability? If
        anyone's flying drones over the US airspace, you bet we would
        shoot it down on the first opportunity.
        \_ what is the international law on sovereignty of airspace? And how
           high do the drones fly? Just curious...
           \_ Bush breaks International Law again. What do you think?
              \_ WRONG. Bush IS the law, international law.
                 \_ Prepare to be JUDGED!
                    \_ 15 years in the academy
                       He was like no cadet they'd ever seen
                       A man so hard his veins bleed ice
                       and when he speaks he never says it twice
                       they call him judge, his last name is Dredd,
                       so break the law and you'll wind up deeeeeeeeaaaaad!
                       Truth and justice is what he's fighting for
                       judge Dredd the man: he is the laaaaaaaawwwwwwww!!!!
                       Respect the badge!!!
                       he earned it with his blood.
                       fear the gun!!
                       your sentence may be death because
                       I am the laaaaaaawwwwwwwww!!!!
        \_ Where's chicom troll to lecture us on the inherent hypocrisy of the
           US and how China is so much more logical and humanitarian....
           \_ you are stupid.  dumb US just destroyed Iran's arch-enemy
              Saddam for them, at the cost of hundreds of billions of dollars,
              and 1500 lives and counting, and are still battling the Iraqi
              Sunnis while Shiite religious fundamentalist parties just
              dominated the election in Iraq.  why would they want to
              shoot down US planes?  chicom troll is not stupid like you.
              even if iran wants to shoot down US plane, they will warn
              first like above, otherwise, US will lie and say they got
              shot down in iraq, blah blah.  now, after the warning,
              when US plane got shot down, the whole world will know
              it's because they violated Iran's airspace and has only
              themselves to blame.  no point getting into unnecessary
              fight with US when it is serving as your running dog.
              the past few years, all the mad iranian mullahs have been
              laughing hysterically at US idiocy and for their regime's good
              fortune.
           \_ Do you have a problem with the above statement? Are you
              suggesting the US will simply protest someone flying
              drones over its airspace? What about the time one CIA
              drone fired a missile at a target on the ground in
              another country? Oh I get it, they are all terrorists,
              and as such they don't have any rights that you so
              proudly claim and try to enforce upon others, but choose
              to abandon at the first sign of trouble for yourself.
              Better yet, call all your enemies terrorists. (Oh wait,
              I take it back, you are already doing that)
              \_ yay! chicom troll's young padawan speaks! -chicom troll #1 fan
                 \_ Wow, nice merging.  This response belongs with the stupid
                    guy, not the problem guy.
           \_ China has been intruding Japanese marine territory with subs for
              years.
        \_ Iran claims to have already shot some down. They are going
           public with the info now.
           \_ link?

2/12    THe gift that keeps on giving
        CIA Operation in Iran Failed When Spies Were Exposed
        http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1341654/posts
        \_ [IP address replaced with hostname]

1/30    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4217703.stm
        Halliburton pulling out of Iran. I smell a new war in the future.

1/18    I just don't get it. We have enough nukes to nuke every major
        city on this planet, yet we go around the world telling other
        countries "no, you cannot have nukes", not to mention we are
        the only country on the face of this planet in the course of
        humanity to use a nuke. We said Iraq definitely have WMD, well
        where the fuck is it? Now we say Iran definitely have it and
        must be eliminated or the world will come to an end. It's like
        a millionaire telling the poor guy on the street, "no, you
        cannot have $10!!" All this shit, and there are still idiots
        on the motd believing Bush and the lies that are coming out of
        this administration. I just don't get it. Without Iran and NK,
        BushCo would have you believe that China would be ready to
        nuke us any minute now. Just tell me again why Iran cannot
        have nukes but we can, and we have shit loads of them.
        \_ Because why does an oil-rich country need nukes?
        \_ Because Iran is ruled by a cabal of religious extremists.
           \_ And the US is not?
              \_ Your brain has been classified as: small.
                 \- you must pay me 5cents.
              \_ No, it's a republic with 3 branches of government.
                 By the way you are stupid.
                 \_ I see it ruled by the republicans.
                    \_ Who were lawfully elected to the offices
                       which they hold. If they fail to properly
                       enact the will of the people they will be
                       voted out of office. Just b/c you didn't
                       vote for them doesn't make them a cabal.
        \_ Do humanity a favor and jump off Evans.
           \_ Do humanity a favor and go fuck yourself.
        \_ Stop thinking! It is unpatriotic.
                        \_ The will of the people?  Bah.  Bush won
                           a popularity contest, not an election
                           based on an electorate rationally considering
                           the issues.  Now, having his illusory "mandate",
                           he will do is own will, not ours.
                           \_ Clinton also won a popularity contest. That's
                              what elections are. Ar-nold.
        \_ You don't understand the difference between Iran and the US?  Try
           living in Iran for a year and let us know how it goes.
        \_ Even forgetting about the arguments about how we're morally
           better than them or have a better form of government, we don't
           want them to have nukes because they are not our friends and we
           want to have more power than them.  It has nothing to do with
           being fair.  It's a seperate argument to say that we are a
           democracy and they are not.  But the real answer to the op's
           question is that we don't let them have nukes because we don't
           want to be threatened by them.  We want to be the ones pushing
           them around, and not vice versa.  Besides, they might be crazy
           and use them for all we know.  Even if this is unlikely, why
           risk it?
        \_ Please tell me that you are a conservative trolling.
        \_ Please tell me that you are a conservative trolling. -liberal
           \_ I think it might be Chicom troll. His English probably improved.
              \_ no, it's not me, and FYI, i don't think he is trolling.
        \_ I've got a gun. That bad guy down the street who hates my guts
           and wants to kill me is trying to figure out how to get a gun.
           He hasn't done it yet but he's getting pretty close. In your
           little world, I should go knock on his door and give him my
           gun so that he can shoot my head off. HINT: Its a jungle out
           there and only the fittest survive. I'm not a saint, and I
           won't be in this life so if its btwn me or the bad guys, I'm
           chosing me.
           \_ I don't have a gun.  But the guy up the street has one and
              hates me.  He has not shot me yet but I am not going to
              sit here and wait.  But since he is trying to keep me from
              getting a gun, obviously he is preparing to shoot me.  In
              your macro world, you would shoot everyone who you think may
              shoot you.  And yes, the guy just hates you because you're
              free.  Ever figure out why people hate each other?
              \_ Good try, but you have made some key mistakes. The
                 critical one is that you assume the good guys want
                 to shoot the bad guy who is trying to get the gun.
                 This is not true. If the bad guy wasn't out to
                 get the good guy, he would leave them alone.
                 The second mistake is that you state that the guy
                 up the street hates you. This is also not true.
                 You are the hater who is going after the good guy
                 who lives up the street.
                 The reason why the bad guys hate us is quite simple.
                 It is the green eyed monster known as envy. Those
                 buggers hate the fact that a free and open society
                 leads to scientific progress and material gain.
                 They resent the fact that our freedoms have made us
                 the most important and prosperous nation in the
                 history of human civilization while their own
                 outmoded ideas have brought them nothing at all.
                 \_ I was with you for your first paragraph, but the second
                    one is bullshit.  You really think the average Iranian
                    who shakes his fist at the Great Satan of the U.S.A.
                    is pondering where their civilization went wrong, and
                    becoming envious as a conclusion?  When people live in
                    a dictatorship, they tend *not* to do much thinking,
                    which is the problem.  Maybe the people *writing* the
                    propoganda think the way you say, but the average man
                    on the street is just spouting crap he heard from his
                    TV/radio/Cleric.  I'm guessing that the real thinkers among
                    them hate the regime so much that they secretly like
                    America just because it's the opposite of what they hate.
                    I've sure met a lot of former soviet citizens who felt
                    that way about Reagan's America.
        \_ Because Iran said they won't
           \-You may wish to read the famous paper "the spread of nuclear
           weapons: more may be better" [adelphi paper #171] by fmr/emeritus
           ucb prof kenneth waltz. there is also a book by waltz and sagan
           that is ok. --psb
                \- oh this paper is online at:
                   http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/waltz1.htm
                   [i didnt check if it is complete. pretty much everything
                   by waltz is good.]
             \_ Please explain why the world will be better with a nuclear
                Iran.
                \_ Someone to nuke Israel, duh!
                \-are you more worried about nuclear "leakage" from
                  the ex-Soviet Union or an Iran bomb? How about Iran
                  vs. Pak? I think Pak is more likely to fall apart.
                  My concern w.r.t. nukes is not the ability of states
                  posessing them increase their ability to influence
                  outcomes beyond their borders, but their ability to
                  maintain good command and control systems. It makes
                  sense for Iran to chase the bomb. It probably didnt
                  make sense for South Africa. I dont think it makes
                  sense for Brazil at the moment, but who knows 10yrs
                  from now under the Jeb administration.
                  \_ Sodians are mostly white imperialist,
                     who uses different standard to judge others because
                     they think USA is morally/culturally  superior.  And
                     if you notice, it's not just nukes.  Chemical weapon,
                     biological weapons, land mines... the theme is
                     consistant:
                     we got them all and free to use it, but no one else
                     should have it.  *ESPECIALLY* if you are not Christian
                     Jews, and/or white.   Did USA signed universal nuclear
                     test ban treaty? nope.  is USA destroying stockpiles of
                     chemical/biological weapons nope.
                     \_ If the jackal asked the elephant to please give
                        up his trunk and his tusks, the elephant would
                        laugh. There is a universal law, it is called
                        survival of the fittest. If you foolishly give
                        your advantage away you are asking to get killed.
                        The TBT is a terrible idea. It ties our hands
                        but allows our enemies to to whatever they like.
                        It is a good thing that ADULTS run this world,
                        not fools like you.
                        \_ In other words, let's quash those Tibetans
                           since TI is bad for China and detrimental to
                           China's vital national intereset.  It's
                           a matter of survival of the fittest.  When
                           Americans complain about human rights, they
                           are just being a bunch of hypocrites and
                           Pharisees, just like in the Bible.
                                                        - Chicom troll
                          \-ObMelianDialog: The strong do what they can
                            and the weak suffer what they must. [nb i mean
                            that as an empirical not normative statement.
                            assessing the normative nature of the international
                            system is beyond the scope of the motd, but see
                            man, the state, and war, and the Stag Hunt example]
                            --psb
                            \- ObAbeLincolnQuotes:
                               "Let us have faith that right makes might, and
                                in that faith, let us, to the end, dare to do
                                our duty as we understand it."
                               "The only assurance of our Nation's safety is
                                to lay our foundation in Morality and Religion"
                               -- chicom troll
                            \- Does the Melian Dialog fit with some kind of
                               Hindu or Buddhist karma world view?

1/17    Iran is next!
        http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?050124fa_fact
        \_ And Hersch (and his informer) should be executed for treason.
           Didn't people complain that our intelligence in Iraq was faulty
           because we didn't have human intelligence on the ground?
           \_ HOW DARE HE QUESTION OUR LEADER!
           \_ Let's execute all dem "newsjournalists" for tippin' off the
              enemy while our boys are behind enemy lines! </troll>
           \_ What is treasonous about this article? Specifically,
              I want you to point out something that was published in
              there that the enemy doesn't already know. Are you against
              the Freedom of The Press now?
              \_ *laugh* take a look at the right wing republican track record
                 on any subject relating to freedom of the press and decide
                 for yourself.  Of course they don't support freedom of the
                 press.
              \_ I did not know that we had boots on the ground in Iran.  I did
                 not know they were the next target (thought it was Syria).
                 Freedom of the Press does not include shouting fire in a
                 crowded theater.
                 \_ You have to consider the possibility that some of
                    Hersch's sources might be feeding him disinformation.
                    \_ That doesn't change the fact that he shouldn't be
                       printing it.
                       \_ I know we have boots on the ground in North
                          Korea and Pakistan, unless the SEAL who told
                          me he had been there in the last year was lying
                          to me, a distinct possibility. I assume we
                          put Special Ops or CIA agents in places like this.
                          That is their job, after all. And Hersch job as
                          a journalist is to make sure we have a national
                          coversation about war against Iran before we
                          say, bomb the crap out of them. If Hersch had not
                          exposed the Abu Gharib torture, it would probably
                          still be going on. Would that be the best thing
                        \_ do you really thikn we have forces in NK
                           right now?  do they disguise themselves
                           as bowls of gruel?
                          \_ Are you a moron?  The Army had already started
                             their investigation.  Why do you think it would
                             still be going on?  The process was working.
                             \_ If you think it's not STILL GOING ON RIGHT
                                NOW, you, sir, are the moron.
                                \_ So there are still people being abused in
                                   Abu Ghraib right now?  What is your proof?
                                   \_ hey guys, I'm confused, are you talking
                                      about waterboarding, pyramid pileups,
                                      forced masturbation, sexual humiliation
                                      in general, or forced positions?
                                      thanks
                                      \_ I think he is talking about the gang
                                         raping of minor boys.
                                         raping of minor boys. Cons always
                                         hate sodomy, except for the non
                                         consensual kind.
                             \_ I don't know, are you ? We were still
                                toruring people at Gitmo for quite a while
                                afterwards and the only reason we stopped
                                was because of the public outcry over Abu
                                Gharib.
                                \_ Please show a reputable reference that there
                                   was continued abuse at Abu Ghraib after the
                                   military began its investigation.
                                   \_ I meant that torture would still be
                                      going on, not necessarily torture at
                                      Abu Gharab. We continued to torture
                                      at Gitmo. If we had not had that national
                                      conversation about torture, where even
                                      "Torquemada" Gonzalez repudiated it, it
                                      would still be going on.
                          for America? How bad would it have gotten before
                          it was exposed then?
                          \_ do you really thikn we have forces in NK right
                             now?  do they disguise themselves as bowls of
                             gruel?
                 \_ Syria isn't dangerous. There's no point wasting time with
                    them. By the way this article is the first time I've
                    noticed the use of an umlaut in words like cooperation and
                    preemptive (pree:mptive). Is that an established thing?
                    \_ It's a New Yorker mag thing, don't worry about
                       it. - danh
                    \_ Doesn't Syria have WMDs?  Aren't a non-negligible number
                       of insurgency leaders in Syria?
            \_ So you think Hersch should be executed for treason
               because he published a report that the US was sending
               Special Ops teams into Iran. Is that your serious
               contention? I think you are a loon.
        \_ "I'm absolutely convinced that the threat we face now, the idea of
           a terrorist in the middle of one of our cities with a nuclear
           weapon, is very real and that we have to use extraordinary measures
           to deal with it." -VP Cheney
           \_ Was that the line against Iraq or Iran?
              \_ VP debate, Oct 5 2004.
        \_ I don't think that he should be executed, like the loony Con up
           there, but I think he should have kept his mouth shut. It is not
           like he is exposing government wrongdoing, like at Abu Gharib or
           in the OSP case or numerous other times. -liberal
        \_ Does the article say whether any special ops teams are there in
           Iran right now?
           \_ "The American task force, aided by the information from Pakistan,
                has been penetrating eastern Iran from Afghanistan"
              \_ thx! -khamenei
                 \_ Next time RTFA!

10/22   The Jews are at it again: http://tinyurl.com/5hskc
        \_ AH, we can always count on them.  Seriously, Iran has to really
           take into account that Isreal might pre-emptively nuke THEM...
           \_ Count on them?  To do what?  Destabilise the entire middle east?
              Israel has had nukes for decades.  Now they want to make sure
              Iran and we all know about Iraq from 1991 don't get military
              parity.  All they want is walls and nukes and Dubya-like
              pre-emptive strikes on people who are just trying to build a
              better life for themselves building electric power plans.  Why
              can't the Jews just get along with their neighbors?
              \_ Isreal is a dick, Iran is an asshole, and you are a pussy.
                 -trey and matt
                 \_ Are you implying an imminent of invasion of Iran by
                    Israel, or are you saying I shouldn't accept any drinks
                    from Israel?
                    \_ I'd go with both, just to be on the safe side.
              \_ Troll!
                 \_ You confuse trolling with dripping sarcasm.
              \_ w00t!
        \_ Dur, the Americans have to do it this time.  Thanks for the URL.

10/22   http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/latimests/20041022/ts_latimes/israelmayhaveiraninitssights
        The Jews are at it again.
        \_ AH, we can always count on them.  Seriously, Iran has to really
           take into account that Isreal might pre-emptively nuke THEM...
           \_ Count on them?  To do what?  Destabilise the entire middle east?
              Israel has had nukes for decades.  Now they want to make sure
              Iran and we all know about Iraq from 1991 don't get military
              parity.  All they want is walls and nukes and Dubya-like
              pre-emptive strikes on people who are just trying to build a
              better life for themselves building electric power plans.  Why
              can't the Jews just get along with their neighbors?
              \_ Isreal is a dick, Iran is an asshole, and you are a pussy.
                 -trey and matt
                 \_ Are you implying an imminent of invasion of Iran by
                    Israel, or are you saying I shouldn't accept any drinks
                    from Israel?
                    \_ I'd go with both, just to be on the safe side.
              \_ Troll!
                 \_ You confuse trolling with dripping sarcasm.
              \_ w00t!
        \_ Dur, the Americans have to do it this time.  Thanks for the URL.

9/21    So "liberal" guy, what do you think the US should do about
        Iran's incipient nuclear program?
        \_ I think we should violently rape and kill all non-US citizens.
           Only then can we be SURE we won't be attacked!
        \_ I don't have the whole answer, but this is part of it:
           http://csua.org/u/959 (Yahoo! News)
           Step 1:  Elect Kerry (Bush is bad at coalitions)
                                  \_ And he's good at what exactly? Looking
                                     smug and stupid?
                \_ Does step 1 include the "International tax" the UN wants
                   and GWB would never allow in a million years?  Why did
                   Schroeder make a speech that essentially said, "Wait til
                   November because our boy Kerry will do it!"?
           Step 2:  Get Russia and Europe all on the same page
                    (Do you really want Iran to have nukes?)
                    \_ WTF does this mean?  Get them?  How?  Why not just
                       say the answer to Iran's nuke program is "Get the
                       Iranians to stop having a nuke program"?
           Step 3:  Help Iran build nuclear power plants, but completely
                    restrict enriching uranium, even for peaceful purposes.
                    Russia can supply fuel for the power plants.
                    It doesn't matter if the NPT says Iran can enrich uranium
                    for peaceful purposes.
                    \_ There has been an open offer of help for years that
                       is even less restrictive than this but the Iranians
                       aren't interested.  Now what?  Please read a newspaper
                       every so often before deciding you have all the
                       answers.
           You can still do 2 and 3 without 1, but I can't help but feel
           Dubya will fuck it up again. -liberal
           \_ what the hell do they need nuclear power for?  What about oil?
              \_ Iran will bewt the inspectors if we don't give em Step 3.
                 Europe and Russia will say they can live with Step 3;
                 but if the U.S. doesn't agree, then we're not using force
                 as the last possible option.  We'll just look like warmongers
                 again.
                 \_ Huh?  The US has offered the Iranians an even better
                    version of your "step 3" for several years.  They are
                    not interested.  Now what?
           \_ Why does Iran need nuclear power??? It is sitting on massive
              petroleum and natural gas reserves.  A gallon of gas in Iran
              is something like 0.30$.  As for Europe, the Germans and
              French were the same countries that sold Iran the illicit
              refining equipment to begin with.  It is Russia who is
              is / has been building Iran's nuclear infrastructure.
              Haven't you figured out appeasement does not work.
              Iran's foreign policy is not coexistence with the West,
              it is elimination of the West.  Iran has been the largest
              state sponsor of terror over the last 30 years.
              \_ Then why the hell did we invade IRAQ?  "Oops, one letter typo"
              \_ iran will probably misuse a nuclear arsenal. but it is
                 well accepted that its oil reserves will not produce enough
                 oil within 50 years.
                 \_ Well accepted?  By whom?  Do you have a source for this
                    statement?
                    \_ It is a geological fact for every country producing
                       oil.  Many countries are now "post peak" and are
                       producing less oil every year, the US being a prime
                       example.
                \_ "Iran will probably misuse a nuclear arsenal" ... Pakistan
                   has nukes and hasn't misused them.  The only country to
                   use nukes so far is us.
              \_ Of course Iran wants nukes; only a moron would think they
                 were only interested in nuclear power.  No one tries to
                 squish a country with nukes without hestitating.
                 No one also doubts that they are at the top of list for
                 state sponsors of terror -- but it's also true we don't have
                 smoking gun evidence of an al Qaeda link.
                 Also, please provide a URL showing that Germany and France
                 sold "[nuclear] refining equipment" to Iran.  I believe
                 Pakistan sold centrifuge equipment to Iran.
                 Also, WW2 showed that giving up a country to an invading
                 country doesn't work.  This was the example of WW2, Korea,
                 and Kuwait.  However, Vietnam and Iraq have been different
                 stories, and it might be again with Iran.
                 So, do we have enough people to invade Iran ...?
                 I told you what I'd do.  Now what would you? -op
                 \_ He answered.  He'd appease.
                    \-semi-tangential comment: while this doenst rise to
                      a "clash of civilizations" there are some instances
                      where it is hard to put yourself in the other guys
                      shoes ...
                      [continuation moved to ~psb/MOTD/AmericanDoubleStandards]
                        \_ When you're a super power there are no double
                           standards.  You do what you want and make the rules
                           for everyone.  That's what being a super power is
                           all about.  The US is a rather benign super power
                           as these things go.  What other country with this
                           kind of power would do so little with it?
                           \_ US is rather benign, but it's not because of
                              the current administration.
        \_ I think a fair solution would be to allow Iran to use the nuclear
           technologies for peaceful purposes, including the dual-use
           technologies, as long as they allow UN's international atomic agency
           to fully monitor their nuclear activities without any exceptions.
           Iran's government has been working a lot in the recent times to
           develop domestic manufacturing (including auto, aerospace) and IT
           industries. Their nuclear ambitions might be viewed simply as yet
           another step on the way to joining the "technologically advanced
           nation" club. They also argue that meeting domestic energy needs
           using solely fossil fuels will have a serious environmental impact.
           Neither they have enough power generating capacity to meet energy
           needs for future. This is probably why they have just started
           building a gas pipeline to Armenia. They say they intend to export
           gas to Armenia and import electricity produced there. I am not
           saying that everything is well in Iran. They were definitely caught
           red-handed handed with their undisclosed uranium enrichment
           facilities but I would allow them to keep their reactors as long
           as they agree to play by the rules.
        \_ Wait a minute.  Isn't our invasion of Iraq supposed to scare
           countries like Iran and N. Korea into abandoning their WMD
           programs?

9/21    [re-posted with various changes]
        So Iran today started to create uranium hexafluoride gas.  They have
        nuclear centrifuges already built to enrich this to nuclear plant fuel,
        but can easily continue to weapons-grade concentrations.  Their stock
        of yellowcake is sufficient for several nukes.  So, I read that it will
        be about a year before Iran can build nukes without outside help.  I
        don't understand this; I believe that IF Iran kicked out the inspectors
        today and IF they wanted to and IF no one did anything, they could have
        a nuke between 6-24 months from now without outside assistance.  Isn't
        this accurate?
        The difficult step in creating a nuke is obtaining weapons-grade
        concentrations of uranium, while the weapon design is easy, and Iran
        already has the centrifuges I believe. -liberal

9/21    So Iran today started to enrich uranium, from a stock sufficient for
        several nukes.  I read that it will be about a year before Iran can
        build nukes without outside help.  I don't understand this; I believe
        they can do it by themselves today if they kicked the inspectors out.
        Isn't this accurate?  Granted it would be 3-12 months before a
        successful nuke test. -liberal
        (For all you wankers who think I'm a crazed freeper since I'm talking
        about Iran, here's an anti-Bush carrot for you: http://csua.org/u/959
        \_ Obviously you are a nuclear arms expert and intelligence agent
           rolled into one so I believe you.
           \_ I took Muller's Physics 7B class and read what he wrote about
              calutrons.  I think that, reading Sum Of All Fears, knowing
              what happened with Pakistan / India, and having some clue is
              enough to make my assertion.  I am asking whether it's accurate,
              after all.
              Muller:  "separation is the hard part; the weapon design is easy"
              http://people.howstuffworks.com/nuclear-bomb5.htm -op
              \_ I saw 'Red Dawn' and took Physics 7ABC and I think you
                 are a troll.
                 \_ Have you read Sum Of All Fears (no, watching the movie
                    definitely doesn't count)?  Have you read Muller's article?
                    Repeat after me:
                    "separation is the hard part; the weapon design is easy"
                    http://people.howstuffworks.com/nuclear-bomb5.htm
                    Muller:  "... can employ the simple, reliable gun method.
                    ... the Hiroshima bomb ... was considered so reliable that
                    it was never tested before it was used."
                    http://muller.lbl.gov/TRessays/09_Lowest_Tech_Atom_Bomb.htm
                    -op
                    \_ Repeat after me: troll.
                          \_ That's because he's an idiot.  He has however
                             discovered that one of the best ways to troll
                             is calling serious posters trolls.
                             \_ The best way to troll is to arm yourself
                                with a little bit of knowledge and act like
                                you know something. This guy is hilarious!
                                Physics 7B!!! I am going to bust a gut!
                                \_ With Muller.  If you took his class, you'd
                                   know what I meant.
                                   I don't see you disputing any of the
                                   evidence provided, and again, the original
                                   post was "please show me I'm wrong". -op
                                   \_ Let's start with your first
                                      sentence: "Iran today started to
                                      enrich uranium." You follow this
                                      with: "I believe they can do it by
                                      themselves today." You think they
                                      can process two tons of ore in a
                                      day? This is where the year comes
                                      from.
                                      \_ You really have a tough time with
                                         English comprehension. The, "...
                                         can do it today" part obviously
                                         refers to the build a bomb without
                                         outside help. In fact, the whole
                                         construct makes no sense otherwise.
                                         Why you would take an ambiguous
                                         phrase and interpret it in the way
                                         that makes it senselessness is
                                         beyond me. Is English your native
                                         language? -!op
                                         \_ No, its the motd.  He just wants
                                            to start a fight. --also !op
        \_ Yep, I think this is about the time the Isreali special forces
           show up and blow the crap out of it.
        \_ Whatever.  Israel, Bush, Kerry, Europe, Russia -- they all know
           the score, I just want sodans to know too when something goes down,
           whatever that may be. -op

7/19    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3908245.stm
        We be invading Iran next.
        \_ FOUR MORE YEAH!
        \_ Pay no attention to the Saudi behind the curtain.
        \_ By definition, this is crying wolf.
           \_ How so?  Tell us the names of the 3 "axis of evil" countries.
              \_ By definition, yermom is a slut.
                 \_ Thanks for adding nothing and proving me right.

6/18    CNN The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) resolution, submitted
        by three European powers -- France, Germany and Britain ... In harsh
        language, the resolution approved by the 35-member board of
        governors of the IAEA "deplores" that "Iran's cooperation has not
        been as full, timely and proactive as it should have been," and
        notes "with concern that after almost two years" since Iran's
        undeclared program came to light, "a number of questions remain
        outstanding." ... it states it is essential for Iran to deal with
        issues "within the next few months."
        The irony is that Dubya will probably get credit for this (building
        a coalition, Iran will probably back down, and the U.S. will avoid
        using force).
        \_ Why should Iran back down?  "Ooh, please don't hit me with that
           strong language again!"
           \_ Compare and contrast:
              Iraq -
              Other nations:  Iraq is contained, there is no smoking gun
              U.S.:  Iraq has WMD and may give them to Al Qaeda
              Iran -
              Other nations:  Iran looks like it wants nukes, and we will stop
                              them.
              U.S.  Iran looks like it wants nukes, and we will stop them.
              \_ It's all rhetoric so far.  What happens when Iran says
                 "Pppphhhhhpppt!"?
                 \_ You're entitled to your analysis, but mine is still that
                    the other countries are all on-board, Iran will probably
                    back down, and Dubya will probably get credit.

6/2     Chalabi has got to be one of the greatest spies in modern history.
        Single-handedly brought down Iran's arch enemy Saddam by making
        use of the dumb and dumber Bush regime, another supposed enemy
        of Iran, gave Iran a strong foothood in Iraq, made BUSH CO waste
        120 billion and counting, weakened US economy, destroyed US
        international reputation, damaged its alliances, tied up US
        military, exposed its limitations, and wasted the invaluable US
        breaking of the Iran communication encryption code, and he
        still gets to walk and speak freely, lambasting the Coalition,
        and asking US to "let my people go!" like a modern day Moses.
        Incredible!
        \_ What proof is there that Chalabi sold us out?  Which U.S. government
           entity is directing the blame?
           \_ hahaha, see how brilliant chalabi is?  the victim can't
              even admit being sold out because it is too embarrassing.
           \_ I see it's Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz that cut off his $340K/month
              Pentagon stipend last month.  Iran is also saying that although
              they talk to Chalabi a lot, they never received any confidential
              information from him.  Chalabi also said on May 23 that the CIA
              is out to get him on the intercept question.

2/6     A guy I work with who is not a US citizen wants to give money to an
        American political campaign.  He's convinced that he can just use his
        credit card to donate a hundred bucks and no one will notice.  Is he
        right?  I actually like working with this guy, and would hate to
        see him get deported over some dumb stunt like this.
        \_ Judging by the responses below, he should consider the prevalence
           of hostile idiots in the US, decide that he doesn't give a rat's
           ass about our defective political machinations, and use the
           cash for something that will benefit mankind a bit more in the
           long run, like a down payment on a hot tub.  Some of you people
           don't seem to know (or care) about the extent to which other
           parts of the world look on US politics with a mixture of amusement
           and sheer unbelieving horror.  -John
           \_ Hey John, guess what?  No one in the US cares *or should care*
              what other people in the world think of our politics.  They
              should mind their own fucking business and worry about their own
              very often very fucked up systems.  The *least* important concern
              for anyone here is what anyone anywhere else thinks of our
              system, our politicians, or anything else.  Envy and jealousy
              are so ugly.
              \_ Of course we should care about how others think about
                 our political system cause we are always trying to
                 regime change other countries, by force or otherwise,
                 to be like ours, and it would make our job a little easier
                 if they like our system.
                 \_ That'll never happen since they get a highly distorted view
                    of our country from their government run media.  You really
                    think a foreign government is going to go out of it's way
                    to show it's people anything good about our system?  Esp.
                    in places like the middle east?
        \_ what a DUMB ASS. $100 will not make a difference. Better donate
           that money to Redcross, and/or the Green Linux Association or
           Bay Area Bike Ride Fanatic Club
        \_ If he is an Israeli AND was not born in Iran/q, then he can do
           whatever he likes.  If not, he might get in trouble.  If he is from
           some other countries, he would be damned by just having the thought.
           \_ oooh, nice little racist troll.  good one.
                \_ here's a helpful little tidbit you should try to keep in
                      \_ You still haven't explained why it is racist.
                         \_ no cookie, troll.
                            \_ it's obviously not a troll, moron.
                               (the request for explanation that is)
                               \_ quite obviously it is and I'm not biting.  no
                                  cookie, troll.  that's the best you'll get
                                  out of this one.  calling me a moron and
                                  abusing the word "obviously" doesn't make it
                                  different from the troll that it is.  troll.
                   mind next time you want to voice your opinion or call things
        \_ why not jsut have him give the money to you and you give the money
                   racist:  You are an idiot.  You have a reading comprehension
                   problem, and are too stupid to be runing around using loaded
                   words like that.  I am not the person who posted the replied
                   to comment, and the comment isn't correct, but it was not
           \_ can't this be construed as money laundering?
                   racist.  You probably can't do anything about your stupidity
                   but you can refrain from subjecting others to it; please try
                                        -phuqm
                   \_ Here's a little tidbit that's about as helpful or useful
                      as anything you've ever posted to the motd: FUCK OFF AND
                      DIE.
                      \_ You still haven't explained why it is racist.
                            \_ it's obviously not a troll, moron.
                               \_ He's right, it's a troll.  Trollity troll!
        \_ why not just have him give the money to you and you give the money
           to the candidate?
           \_ can't this be construed as money laundering?
           \_ Even better, have him give you the money and tell him you donated
              it and pocket it for yourself.
              \_ Bingo!
        \_ Maybe he should influence politics in his own country.
           \_ He comes from a neutral country with the world's dullest
              politics.
              \_ That's his own fucking problem and no excuse to mess with
                    \_ The amazing thing is that this thread was actually
                       not intended as a troll, although it seems to have
                       turned into the troll of the day. Oh well.  -OP
                    \_ No I don't think it was a troll since I know foreigners
                       with the exact same intent and attitude.  You have the
                       right to do anything you'd like to international law
                       breakers as soon as there's an international law, troll.
        \_ Maybe he should influence politics in his own country.
              to improve it through internal efforts.
                 the politics in this country.
           \_ Nah, now that US is world's police man, openly defies
              international laws and claims the right to regime change
              other countries, he has every reason to try to influence
              politics in the US since it's easier to improve his
              country by cajoling US to regime change it than to try
              to improve it through internal efforts.
              \_ Everyone in the world has a reason to attempt to influence
                 politics in the only super power.  They don't have the right.
                       \_ All national governments do (or should do) what is in
                          the best interests of the nation as a whole.  Your
                          government has chosen to interfere in foreign
                          nations.  Other governments have chosen to interfere
                          in our government.  You are a citizen, not a national
                          government and by interfering in a foreign government
                          you are creating your own foreign policy which is
                          detrimental to the rest of the nation as a whole.  If
                          you'd like to create your own foreign policy go make
                          your own nation somewhere else first.
              \_ can I help a foreigner to influence politics in his
                 country?
                 And I'm not going to even bother with the trollish bit about
                 international laws nonsense.
                 \_ You haven't noticed this whole thread was a
                    troll and you jumped right into it?  And
           for the guy.
           directly to a candidate, give money to an interest group that
           supports his positions.
                    yes, I have an inalienable right to dethrone the
                    international law breaking lying through its teeth bush
                    regime.
                    \_ The amazing thing is that this thread was actually
                       not intended as a troll, although it seems to have
                       turned into the troll of the day. Oh well.  -OP
                    \_ No I don't think it was a troll since I know foreigners
                       with the exact same intent and attitude.  You have the
                       right to do anything you'd like to international law
                       breakers as soon as there's an international law, troll.
        \_ Nothing wrong with that.  It's not like he donated millions
           for the guy.
           \_ This is almost the right answer.  The real answer is that he
              *can* do it because it is such a small number no one will
              notice but he *shouldn't* do it and you sure as hell shouldn't
              be helping a foreigner influence politics in your own country.
              \_ can I help a foreigner to influence politics in his
                 country?
                 \_ Can?  You *can* do many things.  I don't think you should.
                    \_ My country is doing it all the time.  Why shouldn't
                       I do it too?
                       \_ All national governments do (or should do) what is in
                          the best interests of the nation as a whole.  Your
                          government has chosen to interfere in foreign
                          nations.  Other governments have chosen to interfere
                          in our government.  You are a citizen, not a national
                          government and by interfering in a foreign government
                          you are creating your own foreign policy which is
                          detrimental to the rest of the nation as a whole.  If
                          you'd like to create your own foreign policy go make
                          your own nation somewhere else first.
                          \_ are you really this stupid?
        \_ Perhaps the better thing for him to do is, instead of giving money
           directly to a candidate, give money to an interest group that
           supports his positions.
           \_ He should donate to a political party in his own country that
              supports his positions.  As a foreigner he has no 'positions'
              in this country.

12/2    "Iran is a more complex problem because the problem is not as clearly
        verifiable as it is in North Korea. Also, we have less - fewer levers.
        The key, I believe, to Iran is pressure through the Soviet Union.
        The Soviet Union is supplying much of the equipment that Iran, I
        believe, most likely is using to set itself along the path of
        developing nuclear weapons. We need to use that leverage with the
        Soviet Union and it may require us buying the equipment the Soviet
        Union was ultimately going to sell to Iran to prevent Iran from
        developing nuclear weapons."  -- Howard Dean (as of a few days ago)
        \_ source?
           \_ Statement on Hardball with Chris Matthews on MSNBC.
              \_ Picked up by http://RushLimbaugh.com
                 \_ Better quote:
                    "Dean's ignorance of how people get their news
                    - and hostility towards letting them choose it
                    - is truly frightening, as is his quip that
                    he'd break up Fox News Channel "on ideological
                    grounds." Imagine the outrage if Bush made a
                    similar statement about CNN!" --Rush Limbaugh
                    \_ I can't tell: is this better because you agree with it?
                       \_ Dean did say he would break up Fox on ideological
                          grounds which makes him sound scary, rather than
                          stupid, like the first quote.  However, I think it
                          was meant to be a joke in context of the show.
                          I didn't find it particularly funny myself.
                          \_ obviously it's not scary if it's a "quip".
                             How about this comment:
                             "If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a
                             lot easier...just as long as I'm the dictator..."
                                                        -- GW Bush, 2000
                             \_ Benevolent dictatorship, ho!
        \_ What Soviet Union?
           \_ Exactly.  This whole thread seems to miss the original point,
              which is that Dean's a moron.

9/14    The tread regard to Iran has been censored again. Haha, I think
        I know why that particular thread is being targeted.  It exposes
        the failure of current administration's foreign policy.  And the
        Motd Censor think by deleting it, people wouldn't know about it.
        \_ LOL why censor why you Carter and Clinton to fall back on.
        \_ LOL why censor when one has Carter and Clinton to fall back on.

8/4     Why can't U.S. allow assassination of say, Sadam or Bin Laden? Why
        is bombing (which is messier) preferred over assassination? Wouldn't
        both effect to take out or weaken leadership, hence both are
        equivalent?
        \_ AFAIR, there was a long standing executive order that assassination
           is not to be used as a policy.  I believe Georgie Jr. nullified that
           order.
           \_ Gerald Ford signed the executive order in the 70s and it has
              never been revoked.
        \_ you really think we haven't sent out special forces teams
           to try and hunt down and kill him?
        \_ I believe we used laser-guided bomb / cruise missle to do the same
           thing, caused some collateral damage.  But when other people
           do it, it's called act of terrorism
           \_ who let the tamil tiger hippie have a soda account?
           \_ yeah, they really wanted to kill just that one guy who jumped off
              the Twin Towers but accidently killed everyone else. Take your
              hate America B.S. somewhere like Cuba or Iran or Germany
              \_ Or France and Belgium.  I honestly wonder sometimes if the
                 various EU countries lost too many real men during WWI/II and
                 literally just don't have the right stuff in their genes now.
                 \_ is this your explanation for russia, china, new zealand,
                    canada and most of the rest of the world as well?
                    \_ Yes. And California, New York and all those wussies
                       in Hawaii, too.
                       \_ No, that's just a case of trash flocking to trash.
                    \_ China?  Pacifists?  Are you nuts?  The Russians aren't
                       either, they just can't afford an army.
        \_ Who says we can't allow the assassination of anyone?  That isn't a
           law, it isn't in the constitution, Congress never voted on it, the
           Senate never affirmed it.  That was just Jimmy Carter telling the
                                                          \_ Bzzt.  Read a book.
           world, "we're nice! don't attack us!" shortly before the whole Iran
           hostages embassy fiasco.  Being nice always worked well in world
           politic.  We can, we do and we should.  What's the question?
           \_ You're an asshole.
              \_ Yes, I am, but that has nothing to do with what I said above
                 about the US/Carter assassination policy.  It is all 100%
                 factually correct.  Maybe next time you'll show up with some
                 counter-facts instead of your little dirty-boy's mouth.
                 \_ 100% except for the Carter part.  Oh, and the Iran hostage
                    part.
                 \_ You scare me. I hope someday you read a book.
                    \_ You still haven't corrected anything with facts, just
                       useless personal attack.  It's too bad facts scare you.
                       \_ It's too bad you haven't gotten laid lately.  Or
                          ever.
                          \_ only by yermom
                          \_ Keep trying.  I'm an asshole, I get laid, and I'm
                             still right and you're not.
                             \_ Hey asshole.
           \_ I don't usually waste my time with morons, but since you
              keep spouting the same lies, I am going to smack you down:
      http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terrorism/execorder12333.html#2.11
              Guess who was President in Dec 1981? Not Carter, dumbass.
              \_ now start your stopwatch and wait for the thread to get
                 nuked...
              \_ Carter freed the hostages, but due to "unusual circumstances"
                 their flight to Germany was delayed so that it would land
                 a few hours into Reagan's presidency, so he could steal all
                 of the credit for their release.
                 \_ No unusual circumstances. The Iranians did it on purpose
                    as a final slap against Carter. Of course they did get
                    all of those swell spare parts, a cake, and a signed bible
                    from Reagan later on...
        \_ Because assassinations work both ways. At a certain point in
           "civilized warfare," specific targeting of enemy officers became
           "uncivil." It was thought that the lack of officers would lead to
           chaos in the field and uncontrolled slaughter would result. This
           was a "do as I say, not as I do" policy and officer targeting
           continued for the most part although officer ransoming and prisoner
           exchanges were much more prevalant then. IOW, we say no assasination
           but we'll do it given half a chance. If they did it, we'd call them
           barbarians. Neat, huh?

6/3     DIY Cruise Missile:
        http://www.interestingprojects.com/cruisemissile
        \_ This looks like something nweaver would do.
                \_ obIPartiedW/Nweaver
                \_ nweaver has the motive (being disgruntled), the means,
                   and the opportunity to do so. It's just a matter of time.

5/21    Bayer sells medicine that carried high risk of transmitting
        AIDS in Asia and Latin America after it stop selling it in
        the west.  100 people in Hong Kong and Taiwan got HIV after
        using Bayer's medicine.
        http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/22/business/22BLOO.html
        \_ So?  Don't those other countries have their own control over drugs
           in the marketplace?  You know there are drugs approved for use in
           Europe that aren't allowed here?  They should protect themselves
           better and not rely on foreign nations to decide what drugs are
           good or bad for their people.
            \_ you have no idea what your great country is doing.  USA
                never reluctant to throw their weight around to sell their
                products.  if the government is not co-operating... well,
                the worse case is what happened to Guatemala, Iran, and
                Iraq - government got overthrown by US either conventional
                or covert forces.
                \_ uhhh, Bayer is german!  damn nazi's experimenting again.
                \_ So the Great White Satan goes to these countries and says,
                   "You must accept our poisoned drugs or we'll invade your
                    country and install a government that will sell our broken
                    drugs to your citizens"?  Stop reading so much
                    alt.conspiracy.esl.
                \_ You've read too many Gibson novels.  Perhaps you should
                   sit down, put a damp towel over your head and take a long
                   rest.
                   \_ Hasn't government basically dissapeard in Gibson's
                      futuristic novels?  Is the US government mentioned
                      even once in the Sprawl series?
                   \_ any citizens of foreign nation who is politically
                      conscious know this.  These are facts, not fictions.
                      For most part, USA just throw its economic weight
                      around, and because USA is the largest export market,
                      that is usually enough.  It's unfortunate for Iran
                      and Iraq, because oil is too much to gave up.
                      \_ Iran?  You mean that we invaded Iran for their oil?
                         WTF are you babbling about?  You're beneath idiocy.
                         \_ You know that the US overthrew a democratically
                            elected leader in Iran and had the Shah installed
                            in his place in 1953, right?
                    \_ Could you join us in the current century please?  And
                       as always, it's not nearly as grade school simple as
                       you'd like to portray history.
           \_ Good troll. Lots of bites.
        \_ You are moron. -aaron
           \_ "You are [a] moron. -aaron" [corrected]
              \_ You are fool" -!aaron
                \_ I am not aaron - eric

2/16    Carter Sold Out Iran 1977-1978
        http://66.34.243.131/iran/html/article774.html
        "Ramsey Clark...played a behind the scenes role influencing members
        of Congress to not get involved in the crisis."

1/20    What are the realistic chances of US mobilizing 100,000 strong
        force on the border of Iraq, and move them back to the States
        without a fight?  In this regard, wouldn't you think this entire
        UN weapon inspection thingy is pointless since we are going to
        fight anyway?
        \_ when the U.S. goes in, the administration thinks there will be
           international pouting but that's it
        \_ Were I any foreign country with nukes, I'd proliferate them
           like crazy to dilute the power of the US.  Who knows who Bush
           will brand evil next?
                \_ Exactly which countries would those be? North Korea,
                   Iran, and Iraq maybe?  Who else is not aligned
                   with the West and nuclear?  And what would be the biggest
                   deterent for a nation interested in developing nuclear
                   weapons and their delivery systems?  Rendering such
                   a weapon useless with ABM technology.
                   And so you honestly believe Iran, Iraq and NK are not
                   evil countries?
                   \_ Mind you, USA created North Korea at
                      at first place (in exchange, Soviet declared war
                      against Japan for something like 3 days before
                      Japanese surrandered).  We don't like Iran cuz
                      they overthrow Sha we installed back in the 50's.
                      and Both Iran and Iraq's oil are nationalized,
                      not controlled by handful of monarchs thus much
                      harder to extract and manipulate profit from it.
                      And I sincerely believe the last reason is why
                      we don't like Iraq and Iran (oppose to other Monarchs
                      whose human right records are not exactly spotless).
                        \_ In fact we did partition Korea, and look at the
                           result.  South Korea is the 13th largest economy
                           in the world. It was led by Rhee, a dictator,
                           for all but 14 years of its existence.  This
                           was the paradigm for U.S. client states during
                           the Cold War.  South Korea's success attests to
                           this.
                           Reza Shah's hold on power existed for more than
                           30 years up until WWII when he entreated the
                           Axis.  Iran was invaded by the Allies, and his
                           son came to power after a coup of the Soviet's
                           candidate.
                           M. Shah was overthrown when Nobel
                           Mosaddeq.
                           M. Shah was overthrown after Nobel
                           Laureate Carter withdrew U.S. support.
                           This precipated militant Islam's first success,
                           the legacy of which we fight today.  Had the
                           Shah maintained power, Iran could arguably
                           be much like S. Korea.  Furthermore, the eight
                           year Iran-Iraq war would likely not have happened.
                           Reza Shah's hold on power existed for more than
                           30 years up until WWII when he entreated the
                           Axis.  Iran was invaded by the Allies, and his
                           son came to power after a coup of the Soviet's
                           candidate.
                           Iraq and Iran are rogue states whose acts
                           threaten international stability.
                           \_ Can't believe you actually believe our
                              imperialistic intervention is for the better
                              of the natives.  Go back to 19th century and
                              enjoy your White Man's Burden.

                              Iran has a very lively democracy today. This
                              can not be achieved with our claws muddling
                              their national affairs for the purpose of oil.

                              North Korea's government evolved from the
                              underground resistance during the Japanese
                              Occupation.  If anything, they are more legit
                              then the puppet we set up in the South.
                              \_ Kim Il Sung was educated in Moscow and
                                 a hand picked protege of Stalin.
                                 A very 'lively' democracy indeed.

9/9     On why being 7 years old in Iran can be fatal: http://csua.org/u/237
        \_ that has nothing to do with being 7.
           \_ it has to do with being 7 in Iran.  If she was 30 her dad would
              not have gotten an axe out.
        \_ Did this happen in Tehran or the arab equivalent of a hodunk town?
        \_ there is nothing specific about Iran.  Fucked up shit like that
           happens all over the place.  Isn't it also humiliating that
           they even checked whether she was still a virgin?
           \_ seems somewhat appropriate given the situation. maybe that's a
              a standard autopsy thing.
           \_ all over the place? uh, no.
        \_ "Rape often goes unreported in Iran where the conservative
           society sees it as bringing shame on the victim and family."
           Clearly, it's the victim's fault for being raped.  How shameful.
        \_ http://www.jang-group.com/thenews/jul2002-weekly/you-16-07-2002/#2
           and if anyone has a more reliable news source for this i'd
           appreciate it.
           \_ Dude this is so main stream even CNN has it.  I think Time might
              have done it already too.
              have done it already too.  IIRC, they sentenced the 4 rapists to
              death or some such thing and a bunch of others got jail time.
              They're appealing but currently in prison.

6/21    How the hell is soccer supposed to make it in the US when
        they can't even beat Iran?
        \_ US team whined too much.  What is it with "We would have won
           9 times out of 10" and all that stuff?  If they lost, they
           should swallow the defeat, go home, practice hard, and come
           back 4 years later.  Enough with that sore looser crap.
           No wonder the world doesnt repect US soccer.
        \_ IRAN RULES, BABY!!           --azarm