Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Gopher]

Ah. You just stumbled upon and then posted them here and they may or may not reflect your own views...Sure.

[bacasper]

Some of us actually believe in stimulating a discussion rather than posting with an agenda. With your conspiratorial worldview, I could see how you would think otherwise, though.

[Ya-ta Boy]

[bacasper]

[bacasper]

'Ball of fire' if Iran attacked: IAEA chief

June 22, 2008

DUBAI (AFP) - The UN atomic watchdog chief on Saturday warned that an attack on Iran over its controversial nuclear programme would turn the region into a fireball, as Tehran rejected an Israeli strike as "impossible."

Mohamed ElBaradei also warned that he would not be able to continue in his role as International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) director general should the Islamic republic be attacked.

"A military strike (against Iran) would in my opinion be worse than anything else... It would transform the Middle East region into a ball of fire," ElBaradei said in an interview with Dubai-based Al-Arabiya television.

A report by the New York Times on Friday cited US officials as saying that a major military exercise carried out by Israel earlier this month seemed to be a practice for any potential strike against Iran's nuclear facilities.

In Athens, an official with the Greek air force's central command confirmed the substance of the US media report, stating that it had taken part in "joint training exercises" with Israel off the Mediterranean island of Crete.

The manoeuvres, code-named "Glorious Spartan 08," took place on May 28 and June 12, and consisted of aerial exercises and knowledge exchange, said the Greek source, who requested anonymity.

The goal was for more than 100 Israeli F-16 and F-15 fighter jets to prepare for long-range strikes and demonstrate Israel's serious concern over Iran's nuclear ambitions, the Times reported.

But ElBaradei said on Saturday that any attack would simply harden Iran's position in its row with the West over its nuclear programme.

"A military strike would spark the launch of an emergency programme to make atomic weapons, with the support of all Iranians, including those living abroad," he said.

He did not believe that there was an "imminent risk" of proliferation given the current status of Iran's nuclear programme and made it clear he would "not have a place" as IAEA head in the event of a military strike against Iran.

The West fears the Islamic republic could use uranium enrichment to make an atomic bomb although Tehran insists it only wants nuclear technology for peaceful energy purposes.

ElBaradei's comments come as Iran stressed on Saturday it will not negotiate with world powers over its nuclear programme if it is required to suspend its enrichment activities.

"Suspending uranium enrichment has no logic behind it and it is not acceptable and the continuation of negotiation will not be based on suspension," Iranian government spokesman Gholam Hossein Elham told reporters.

He responded to talk of a military strike by saying, "Such impudence and audacity to have an aggression against our national interest and integrity is an impossible action."

In Jerusalem, the Israeli parliament foreign affairs and defence commission chairman Tsahi Hanegbi said Saturday that Western diplomatic efforts to halt Iran's nuclear programme had "failed".

"Next year and the year after that will be crucial. The world must must decide if it gives more time to diplomatic efforts, which currently do not seem very promising," he told Israeli public radio.

"Western measures against Iran's nuclear programme have failed."

On June 6 an Israeli Deputy Prime Minister, Shaul Mofaz, warned that Iran would face attack if it pursues what he said was its nuclear weapons programme.

A week ago, European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana presented a new offer to Mottaki on ending the six-year standoff over Iran's nuclear drive, offering economic and trade incentives. Iran is still considering the plan.

It was made on behalf of Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States.

[contrarian]

If Iran wants to turn the Middle East into a ball of fire, then so be it.

As long as Israel isn't harmed.

[bacasper]

[contrarian]

Abslutely. Amadinejad says we will destroy Israel and exterminate the Jews .

Israel says, tough luck. We got you first.

[bacasper]

[Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee]

No but it would be justified to hit Iran bases on that they have engaged in war against the US for almost 30 years.

That being just cause an action would be justified doesn't make it the right course of action.

[Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee]

[Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee]

[bacasper]

SELLING THE FIREBALL - GEORGE BUSH AND IRAN

When George Bush arrived in Britain last week as part of his "farewell tour", the real reasons for the visit were buried well out of sight. The tour was not, as the Guardian suggested, a mere "continental au revoir". The purpose was to coerce Gordon Brown into raising troop levels in Afghanistan and to support toughened sanctions on Iran. Bush said pressure on Iran was necessary to "solve this problem diplomatically", but warned: "Iranians must understand, however, that all options are on the table." (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/ uk_news/politics/7456081.stm)

The remarks raised fears in London that Bush is "determined to take action against Iran before he leaves office in January," the Independent reported. (http://www.independent.co.uk/ news/world/politics/bush-threatens-iran-with-military-action-848488.html)

Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), warned that any attack on Iran would transform the region into a "ball of fire." Even from the West's point of view an attack would be disastrous:

"A military strike would spark the launch of an emergency programme to make atomic weapons, with the support of all Iranians, including those living abroad." (http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hWSpmwY-Ckcf_V2Kf5RRNOgDh7Hg)

ElBaradei added that an attack would make it impossible for him to continue as head of the IAEA.

In support of Bush warmongering, French President Nicolas Sarkozy declared, on cue:

"Today, the most immediate threat is that of a terrorist attack. Thanks to the effectiveness of our security forces, France has not been attacked in recent years. But the threat is there, it is real and we know that it could tomorrow take on a new form, even more serious, by nuclear, chemical and biological means." (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7458650.stm)

Sarkozy's propaganda contribution was splashed all over the BBC website as "Breaking News." The previous weekend, the Times had hinted at machinations behind the scenes, noting that "the French President has quite deliberately donned the mantle once worn by Tony Blair, defiantly - even triumphantly - talking up his love for all things American". (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/ news/world/europe/article4133574.ece)

Sarkozy had delighted Washington by saying the West must choose between "an Iranian bomb and the bombing of Iran". "The frost is over," according to one French government aide. "We want to show the warmth that now exists between the two countries after the frictions of the recent past." (Ibid)

The "warmth" translates as French obedience to US power - a policy change which will make France far more, not less, likely to be targeted for terrorist attack, particularly if Iran becomes the next victim of a US-led terrorist 'coalition'.

Madness In Search Of War

The BBC also found space to boost Bush-Brown propaganda:

"Iran has been accused of not co-operating with the UN over its nuclear programme, amid fears it is enriching uranium to use in weapons." (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/ uk_news/politics/7456081.stm)

No mention was made of last November's US National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), which summarised the work of the 16 American intelligence agencies. The report disclosed that Iran had not been pursuing a nuclear weapons development programme for the previous four years:

"We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003 Tehran halted its nuclear weapons programme."

The report added:

"Tehran's decision to halt its nuclear weapons programme suggests it is less determined to develop nuclear weapons than we have been judging since 2005." (http://www.guardian.co.uk/ world/2007/dec/04/politics.topstories3)

It is 'balanced' BBC reporting to mention alleged "fears" about Iran as genuine, but not to mention an intelligence report that undermines the credibility of those fears. This, recall, even as the catastrophe in Iraq - based on identical US-UK propaganda and identical BBC servility - is ongoing.

More at link

[bacasper]

'US builds 4 bases on Iraq-Iran border'

Wed, 25 Jun 2008 22:42:19

The US military has constructed four advanced bases 20 miles from Iraq's border with Iran, a senior Iraqi police officer has announced.

The bases, equipped with missile launch pads, have been set up over the past four months on the Iraq-Iran border; Iraqi al-Noor newspaper quoted the official as saying.

He added that one of the bases has been located 30 km (20 miles) from the first border town with Iran and houses remote-controlled launching pads as well as radar systems similar to ones used in Kuwait during the first Persian Gulf war.

"The bases do not serve military intentions and its staff would not be military personnel."

According to the official, the bases are only precautionary measures in case of a military strike against Israel by Iran.

A team consisting of high-profile US marines, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) alongside Pentagon experts oversee the bases.

[Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee]

The Iraq war was about military bases more than anything.

But if Iran gave up their war their wouldn't be any problem.

Let Iran & Al Qaeda quit their war and then US soldiers will come home right away.

The US has done nothing wrong.