zfn9dgv2w [URL=http://www.888067.com/971526.html] i6xnkm69afsffrnu6 [/URL] gudm49iverkfn

q7jhoegu8z5j wluykqqsf [URL=http://www.664432.com/197348.html] h01kvcizl [/URL] 92b3s9cmvysijlcc

7jvgyov2mutks2d inhd6higfeuxvtxyq [URL=http://www.864381.com/299720.html] mf7fyrh79vt8qq [/URL] jh2vto5qqte23

Dems even with their new majority seems still to be not able to change Bush's policy, and these policies he made abundantly clear to begin with. He needs as much oil, as he could get, and Iraq was the first step, Iran is supposed to be the second. That is what is persistently happening though orchestrated by numerous 'anti' demonstration and other similar stuff, which honestly doesn't deserve much of attention. If Issa is able to at least punish top people for the obvious treason they employed to implement these policies, it would be nice. But it still looks like a slim chance.

Greetings!
Undoubtedly, you will reach big success with your site.
milf porn
http://milf2porn02scb.blogspot.com/

The Common Denominator,

If western intelligence is correct, Pakistan has something in common with the American people.

Pakistan apparently has a section of its country, near the white mountains, whose inhabitants are completely autonomous from the rest of the nation. They are a group of people who are above the law; they are killers, exporters of terrorism and they come and go as they please.

The American people have the same problem in a section of our country near the Whitehurst Expressway called the Federal District of Columbia. This district in America harbors and protects a group of separatists, who are also above the law. They export terrorism around the world and believe that they are immune to the laws that every other American is subject to.

Ironically, these two groups would like nothing more than to cancel the other one out, even though both groups from all accounts think alike and behave alike.

How do you tell them apart, one group prefers to wear 2-pieced European suits.

The world would apparently be a lot safer without either of these two groups!

Iraq is a composite nation, just as many others are in the Middle East and Africa, drawn up by geographical and economic boundaries by European Nations. The peoples of the Middle East and Africa should have had more self determination in regards to national borders and boundaries that recognized ethnic and religious uniqueness. This alone will not bring peace, but it does recognize the democratic self determination we in America prize so greatly. I wish the nations of these regions could be rebuilt to more reflect the will of the population, but this will never happen, those who have been granted power over others are not willing to share power. Mankind has made tremendous technological strides over the past 10,000 years, but for better or worse we are still emotionally the same primitive hunter gathers we were 10,000 years ago. We can feed millions of starving people and kill them just as easily.

"Those people who are, in the above comments, openly advocating "fight fire with fire", or "get the Kurds to fight the Iranians", or "bomb here" and "bomb there" - listen to yourselves."

Anon
"It is solid negotiation and diplomacy, with a good business sense that wins hearts and minds every time, and provides solid allies, ones who do not make you enemy after enemy while telling you to go fight their dirty little wars for them." Really? Every time? Don't think so. Feel free to point out some of the instances where solid negotiation and diplomacy, with a good business sense has worked. This has gotten the world Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Sudan, Israel/Palestinians, Pakistan/India, Rwanda, Bosnia, Germany and Japan in WWII, Somalia, USSR, etc... And what is the common thread? Diplomacy before, during or after wars continued while people continued to die or live under a brutal rule. Sure, the US avoided war with the Soviets. But how many Russians died under Stalin or were sent off to gulags or siberia during that "peaceful" time? And since you bring it up, Israel was attacked by its neighbors from the moment of its inception. How 'bout that diplomacy?

Those people who are, in the above comments, openly advocating "fight fire with fire", or "get the Kurds to fight the Iranians", or "bomb here" and "bomb there" - listen to yourselves. You are no better, even worse than the people who have committed the worst atrocities in history. You are actually inciting murder of innocent women and children that you have never met, and who have never done anyone any harm. It is the unfortunate result of Israeli and Neocon initiated rhetoric, and a number of Rambo films, that we have Armchair Warriors who sit behind their TV sets and computers, and make up plans on how to "tame" other countries by bombing them. The truth is, just because a nation says they do want to be independent, or just because Israel says so, we simply cannot just throw the lives of our young soldiers away and dying needlessly thousands of miles away in a war that was started on lies and made up stories, while the people who are advocating war sit back home, make enormous amounts of money and watch the action on TV. We simply must come to understand that bombing people just because of the lobbyists in congress and false stories in the press, will not make us any more friends, or any less enemies. It will simply make more American haters for generations to come. It is solid negotiation and diplomacy, with a good business sense that wins hearts and minds every time, and provides solid allies, ones who do not make you enemy after enemy while telling you to go fight their dirty little wars for them. And a bit of fairness and justice in dealing with international issues such as using phosphorus bombs against civilians in Lebanon, possessing nuclear weapons without declaring them while telling your neighbours you cannot even have nuclear power, would not go amiss either.

The sturge.

DC
"Or do we use diplomatic means to hold all countries accountable for the actions of their citizens, including our own."
The number of examples i could come up with of diplomacy not working is staggering in comparison to the success stories. I would be more than happy if major problems could always (heck even mostly) be solved diplomatically, but that is not mankind at the moment. Realistically, until the nature of man changes, diplomacy, while noble, will continue to be an ineffective means to right the multitude of wrongs in the world. It's easy for diplomats to head to the UN, pass resolutions, and sit around arguing about solutions. Its even easier for us to opine on the issues and what the diplomats should be doing or what they did wrong. In countries where people are getting killed, maimed and tortured, its not so easy waiting for help that more times than not does not come or comes too late. This is not to say I think we should dispense with diplomacy altogether - I think we need to try harded and do it better (lord knows the US could improve in this area). But there comes a point when people are dying, everyone knows people are dying, and waiting for diplomacy to work begins to seem cruel.

I know that your post focused on nuclear weapons and their proliferation. When it comes to this, the stakes are so high. It would help if people had confidence that international agreements could work, if agreements were enforced, if the world community came to the aid of those that desperately need it. I don't think they do. The question many are asking is just how much are we willing to stake on diplomacy? You are probably right that preemptive strikes to attack rumors and innuendos creates many fold more nuclear threats against us. Failed diplomacy (caving in/lack of enforcement/double standards, etc) does the same as it encourages others to try, knowing there is no downside. I don't know that i have a good answer, but i do think that it can't be only diplomacy (or only force). And many times, i think that diplomacy goes on too long until it too late.

DC,

The Turks folded their hand in the Iraq war when they refused the U.S. military privileges to move through or over their country. Their lack of support at the origin and thereafter was quite possible the most significant obstacle that to entrap us where we are now.

So little respect after shielding them from Soviet domination for decades. Anything we might owe the Turks now could easily be fastened altogether with a paper clip.

Turkey hits back at Iraqi Kurdish leader over independence, Kirkuk

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070227/wl_mideast_afp/turkeyiraqkurds

ANKARA (AFP) - Turkish leaders warned Iraqi Kurds Tuesday that their claims to the ethnically volatile, oil-rich city of Kirkuk in Iraq and talk of independence would fuel conflict in the region, Anatolia news agency reported.

Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul accused the head of the autonomous Kurdish region in Iraq, Massud Barzani, of being "irrational" after he told Turkish television that regional countries should accept that Kurds, who live in Iraq, Iran, Syria and Turkey, have a right to independence.

"Irrational leadership and ... dreaming in the Middle East have always plunged the peoples into trouble," Gul told journalists on a flight back home from Afghanistan, Anatolia reported.

He slammed Barzani's remarks as "either deliberate or an example of irresponsibility at a time when the region, and particularly Iraq, is passing through a critical period and when Turkey is following a constructive policy."

Barzani told the NTV news channel Monday that Iraqi Kurds were extending "a hand of friendship" to Turkey and urged face-to-face talks to end high-running bilateral tensions over Turkish Kurd rebels who have found safe haven in his autonomous region in neighbouring northern Iraq.

Ankara is worried that Kurdish control of Kirkuk's oil reserves will boost what it sees as Kurdish aspirations to break away from Baghdad.

Kurdish independence, it fears, could further fuel a bloody Kurdish separatist insurgency in adjoining southeast Turkey, which has already resulted in more than 37,000 deaths.

Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan also denounced Barzani's comments.

"Kirkuk resembles a small Iraq and is not the registered property of any ethnic group," Anatolia quoted him as saying late Monday.

"Such an attitude is very wrong with regards to Iraq's future. I believe such an attitude will overshadow peace, love and brotherhood in Iraq," he said.

Both Erdogan and Gul have recently asserted that Ankara was open to talks with Iraqi Kurds to mend fences and discuss ways of curbing the rebels based in northern Iraq, contrary to earlier Turkish threats of a cross-border military operation into the region.

Ankara has grown increasingly impatient with US and Iraqi reluctance to move against the militants of the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), listed as a terrorist group by both Ankara and Washington, among others.

Army chief General Yasar Buyukanit has accused Iraqi Kurds of "fully" supporting the PKK and providing it with explosives for bomb attacks in Turkey.

In Monday's interview, Barzani denied that Iraqi Kurds supported the group.

I would hope there were no nuclear war heads on this planet, just as any other sane person would. That is not our reality. Although in the cold war, a nuclear strike was portrayed as eminent threat, compared to today it takes back street. Do we use preemptive strike to attack rumors and innuendos, thus create many fold more nuclear threats against us? Or do we use diplomatic means to hold all countries accountable for the actions of their citizens, including our own. In petroleum based world threatened by the depletion of petroleum and global warming do we continue to suppress the use of nuclear energy or is there a need for a more closely internationally monitored means of utilizing nuclear energy that would prohibit the development of nuclear weapons?

DC

"Iranians have every right to build nuclear warheads"
Posted by: Whoever | February 27, 2007 01:06 PM

Actually we decide what rights the Iranians have, and if we decide they are not to have nukes, then they will not have nukes. I think you need the same medical treatment prescribed to the rev.
Posted by: the unknown comic.

"Iranians have every right to build nuclear warheads"

Posted by: Whoever | February 27, 2007 01:06 PM

Actually we decide what rights the Iranians have, and if we decide they are not to have nukes, then they will not have nukes. I think you need the same medical treatment prescribed to the rev.

Iranians have every right to build nuclear warheads (if they even have such a plan) and they have absolutely every right to use it if they are attacked. Who asked US to be the bully boy of the school yard and decide who should be punished for this or sanctioned for that. US has zero credibility left anyway. US should be dealt with and sanctioned for its own giant stock pile of WMD. The truth is that the white man wants oil, white man is going to get it the rest is BS.

Posted by: The Rev | February 27, 2007 07:58 AM

After reading your ranting I have to diagnose you with paranoid delusional liberal syndrome. I prescribe that you find a Marine and request a swift kick in the ass (I assume that is the area in which your thoughts originate).

If US should attack Iran, it will be engaged in wars with about 130 million people in the region in 3 countries. It simply will choke on it. According to Hersh US has now done a 180 degrees turn and supporting Sunni Jihadists (read AlQaeda) through channeling illegal money (similar to Contras affair) to these groups. Last time US supported Jihaddists was in the 80s, training 100,000 of them to fight Soviets. They came back to haunt us by creating AlQaeda. So what is the policy ? Changing alliances from Shia to Sunni extremists and back and forth ? Is the real goal to destroy the entire region through creating constant instability ? Well, there won't be a free launch. This type of so-called containment policies come at price and everybody should pay the price. US is paying the price by probably having to spend 1000 billion dollars on wars already raging. Start another war and you have to multiply this figure ten folds.

I agree with you 100% pertaining to an Independent Kurdistan, the Brits should have done that after WWI. But the Turkish government is adamantly opposed to any Kurdish independence anywhere in the world due to it being a threat to their security; Turks consider Kurds their terrorist threat. Thus the United States has to make a choice between an Independent Kurdistan and retaining Turkey as an ally; we have in the past and with this administration have chosen Turkey.

DC

Fight fire with fire. Why not work on driving a Kurdish separation movement in northern Iran, expanding friendly Kurdish independent control in a continguous region across Iraq and Iran? Seems completely fair to some of us.
Posted by: On the plantation

Fight fire with fire. Why not work on driving a Kurdish separation movement in northern Iran, expanding friendly Kurdish independent control in a continguous region across Iraq and Iran? Seems completely fair to some of us.

Mike,

"Enemy of my enemy is my friend", the Iranian Shiite Muslims and the Iraqi Shiite Muslims would unite in holly war against us. There will be no uprising against the mullahs in Iran if we struck that country, just as there was no Shiite uprising when Bush II invaded Iraq. You must consider that Iran's involment in Iraq is extremely minimal at this point in time if at all and we want to keep it that way. An attack on Iran would prompt the Iranian government to supply an arsenal of deadly weapons to the Shiite Militias in Iraq and our troops will pay a deadly price for such a foolish move (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/missile.htm ). As for sealing the borders, why haven't we done that now? You think a few check points on the main highways between Iran and Iraq will stop anything? There are literally thousands of back roads around these few check points. Short of a draft, Bush will be sending Boy Scout troops to the Middle East. You think as our "armoured cav operation" pulls back into Iraq or Afghanistan the Iranians aren't going to follow? At that point what do they have to lose, we already invaded and bombed them.

Mike you need to know your enemy ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War ). Even gas attacks didn't deter the Iranians. Iranians are not Argentinians and Britain did not invade mainland Argentina. Argintina had no way to resupply it troops on an isolated island, that was a very poor comparison, apples and oranges.

It is sufficed to say Bush does not have a viable Middle East policy; he has a viable Meddle East Policy.

DC

Is it not possible that the Administration is planning not an invasion and occupation, but a raid or reconnaissance in force? Air power alone cannot destroy the infrastructure for nukes or missiles, but a combined air assualt/armoured cav operation that gets in and out, and then seals the border, could destroy the infrastructure and a considerable portion of the conventional forces before an insurgency has time to organize. The Administration might figure that the discontent of the population would turn against the mullahs, just as the Argentines turned against the generals after the Falklands. They would be wrong, but this is a crowd known for acting on wishful thinking.

Posted by: Mike Deal

Is it not possible that the Administration is planning not an invasion and occupation, but a raid or reconnaissance in force? Air power alone cannot destroy the infrastructure for nukes or missiles, but a combined air assualt/armoured cav operation that gets in and out, and then seals the border, could destroy the infrastructure and a considerable portion of the conventional forces before an insurgency has time to organize. The Administration might figure that the discontent of the population would turn against the mullahs, just as the Argentines turned against the generals after the Falklands. They would be wrong, but this is a crowd known for acting on wishful thinking.

The Rev(isionist),
Thanks for those Democratic talking points. What that has to to with the topic of this blog (In War Planning for Iran, Truth Is the Linchpin) I don't know but its always good to hear what the Ostrich party is up to.

"Bush did it, and everyone knows that he lacked any qualifications to be the President of the United States." Bush had all the qualifications necessary to become president (as demonstrated by the fact that he was allowed to run for the office). What qualifications he may or may not possess in addition to those is up for debate.

REV SAYS: How About A Plan To Eliminate Poverty in America?

Sean: How about you lead by example Rev...lets talk about what you are doing personally to stop homelessness? Why is it always someone elses job to fix REV? I mean you got a spare couch right?

Posted by: Sean | February 26, 2007 02:46 PM

Rev, I won't embarass you by responding in kind kind to your inane attack, given that you would be most embarassed if you knew what the Rev has been doing in the social welfare area for about 35 years now.

However, with respect to 'our' money, the revenue of the United States of America, belongs to the American people.

It is a shared interest, and we all can have some input into how we would like for it to be spent.

I make no apologies for wanting to use our resources to create a mechanism whereby we can eliminate poverty in the U.S.A.

We can do that, and guess what, some people will still be rich. Isn't that better that borrowed resources and using our hard-earned task dollars for surges and to kill people who haven't done one thing wrong to the U.S.A.?

I've seen more obtuse individuals than you make the turn around, I trust that someday you will too!

And we will all be singing: "Happy days are here again..., well some of us will be singing!

673-693 and counting...

According to my unofficial estimate in about 673 to 693 days the scurrilous and debauched Presidency of George W. Bush will be over, and hopefully, the murder by Americans will have been abated or ended as well.

The only bad thing about it will be the residual effects of the Bush legacy, including the left-over Bush Spinners and boo birds who will still be around attacking the sane individuals in the world who believe in justice, morality and the rule of law, the ones who are seeking the right to life and pursuit of happiness for all human beings.

What will the country loose when GB & Company are gone to MD, Stanford & Crawford.

- A jaundiced President and Administration
- Invasions and occupations
- Threats against other nations
- Verbal attacks on citizens who share a difference of opinion

- A divided Federal government
- Tensions in the world, on a scale of 1 to 10, currently ratcheted up to about 10.1
- Class stratification and favoritism pointing to one socio-economic
- Americans without healthcare
- Murder by Americans
- Gross incompetence and negligence

When you think about it, once they are gone America and the world will have everything to gain, including the following:

- Civility
- A good reputation for America
- Responsible and responsive government
- Full disclosure to Congress, respect for Congress, the American people and the Rule of Law
- A realistic domestic and foreign policy

- Honorable leadership,
- Trust again from our allies
- A military that will be used to defend America
- A more united country
- Citizens with healthcare
- A more peaceful world!

Bush, the boyz and Condi may not go to jail where they belong (Scooter may be the exception), however, they will neither have have control over the Federal government nor the ability to wreak havoc on America and the rest of the world anymore!

And we will all be singing "Happy

I think you've been gone for a while Rev, I'm surprised they allow you access to a computer...

Posted by: |

Hi Coward,

It's all for sale, son, and it's too bad that you don't realize tht either. With enough money, anyone can buy the U.S. Presidency. Bush did it, and everyone knows that he lacked any qualifications to be the President of the United States. And six years of the George Bush presidency proved that!

It is amazing what you can do with money in the United States of America. And look what he got for his money!

The fact is that another group can come in and probably do the same that he did, come up with your own personal agenda, ignore the majority of the American people and Congress, alienate your allies and proceed on a path of destruction around the world.

It would seem to me if we shuld put anyone away it would be George Bush, those of his ilk and sycophants like you!

Mr. Arkin

I think that the Iraqi government has already made its position clear on the US-Iran conflict: we don't want to get involved and please take your arguments elsewhere. Even Shia nationalists such as Sadr have explicitly stated that ANY US attack on Iran is a red-line that must not be crossed.

The Bush administration's hopes that Iraq could be a launching pad for action against Iran died with the successive electoral failures of Iyad Allawi to capture the premiership; the pointless US rear-guard actions to keep Allawi politically alive as a potential PM in the wake of both elections, in spite of the hopeless arithmetic reality of the situation, just showed how stubborn the illusion was.

As regards other lynchpins in the region, Pakistan, Turkey, Afghanistan and a number of the Gulf states have all demurred thus far; the UK will probably permit the use of Diego Garcia for search and rescue for downed US pilots, but no more than that.

What is never revealed in the reportage about US attack planning are the heads of terms assumptions regarding tripwires and triggers, the IL and diplomatic landscape, such as UNSC resolutions explicitly authorising force, and what third-party consents regarding airspace and basing are required to make the plan operable. If Qatar, for example, will only permit the use of Al Udeid for such an operation if there is a chap 7 UN resolution authorising military action, the presence of a grand coalition and pre-paid indemnities for anticipated consequent damages then Qatar has effectively, without any public song and dance, told the Bush administration "no".

Under any other administration I would agree with you, but this is not any other administration. We thought along the lines of your post before Iraq and look what happened. We had plans for Iraq, but Bush & Co. tossed those out the window and went with the Rummy plans to use 1/3 of the troops the original plans called for.

Look at the facts to how Bush reacts:

Saudi Arabia, the country most responsible for the 911 attack, Bush had to make a choice; justifiable retribution for the Twin Towers and the victims or oil for our economy. Bush chose oil.

Bush attacked Afghanistan and that was justifiable.

Pakistan, the country third most responsible for the 911 attack, we had to make a choice; justifiable retribution or try not to jeopardize Pervez Musharraf tenuous presidency or else he would be replaced by a hard line Nuclear Armed Islamic Government that supported Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. Bush Chose Pervez Musharraf and has accepted the hard fact Musharraf will continue to harbor Al Qaeda.

Iraq, a country that was totally unconnected to 911 or Al Qaeda and didn't have WMDs to give terrorists. WTF are we doing in Iraq!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Iran, a country that wasn't connected to 911 or Al Qaeda. The drum beat has started, we hear it, the neocons are restless.

"If the Pentagon did not have plans for war with Iran, N. Vietnam, even China - they would not be doing their job.
There had better be plans for any number of unforeseen clashes with hostile countries.
Of course, when something major does happen - if we didn't have a plan ready for reaction, the critics would all cry out, "They're incompetant! They're asleep at the wheel!" or some such nonsense...
To be clear, and to beat the dead horse for those who can't seem to grasp this...this does not mean we have made the decision to go to war and are making plans to carry out those plans - we are not "planning for war." Get it?
Posted by: I'mRight"

SSean,

You need to answer the question of why you still want to stay the course with Bush and company in Iraq policy? As for my age, as I stated before, I am eleven. Well, to be honest, eleven and one half. You're forty four, the "me first generation", something to be ashamed of.

Sean: What, are you high? NYT pulitzer prize winning reporters and Medal of Honor winners stating it as fact? I guess if that is not good enough for you, then you had to be there watching it...but people like you would convince yourself you did not see it anyway...how old are you anyway Sean #1? I am 44 just so you know...I am asking because you seem awful defensive about this particular incident...usually, in my experience it masks a baby boomer leftist...are you like somwhere between say 52-62? Just wondering...
Posted by: Sean

I wonder if lamemule is Dickkktator Cheney?

Wiredog + Arkin = Foul stench of the "we hate America" Left!

By the way what was the purpose of Arkin's post and who cares what he writes anymore?

Posted by: The Lonemule

Wow, Mr. Arkin, you get all the nut bars, don't you?

What will U.S air superiority really do to the Iranian nuclear program? Nothing ...except push towards solidarity many Iranians who are questioning their government's stubborness and unwillingness to negotiate. Democracy has never been the end goal for this administration, any past administration or for that matter any future administration. Resources and the ability to secure those resources for future American commerce are a matter of national security.

Welcome back Mr Arkin,

I very much enjoy reading your columns. Your have brought out points that need o be discussed.

One thing your recent articles has confirmed is that JINGOISM is alive and well in the USA. The angry backlash against you, NBC news, and the Washington Post was overdone and a sad commentary to how polarized and divided this country has become under Bush and Cheney. Now that they have us mired in a hopeless Iraqi war being financed with a credit card, while they give tax breaks to the wealthiest, their strategy is clear to pass the mess on to the next administration. Stick to your beliefs and report the truth. O'Reilly and Foxnews will be laughable footnotes in the pages of history, with their blind bootlicking allegience to this White House. O'Reilly reports nothing, his entire show is devoted to slanted bashing of NBC news these days.

Ironically, the sad fact is that future mideast events may be outside the control of either the Bush neocons or the Democrats, I feel the US is now relegated to spectator status now that we have unleashed the Sunni-Shiite war.

Sad watching Congress and the White House frantically fighting over control of the steering wheel of the Titanic, too late since the ship can't possibly avoid the iceberg in its path.

hang in there and keep the faith!

Pat Dollard is a skinhead and I mean that in a reality kind of way! He makes mega bucks off our troops being endangered and killed. Pat Dollard profits from their deaths!

You're a douchebag. And I don't mean that in the positive "feminine hygiene product" way, I mean that in the derogatory, "you're an idiot" way.

God Bless our Troops.

Check out a real journalist: http://patdollard.com

Posted by: ThankfulForTheBlanket |

To imagine on any rational basis that there is a deliberate intention on the part of the USA to go to war against Iran ignores one large reality. The USA has made no real preparations to conduct more war.

Ample manpower is not there, and a great deal of what we have is dangerously concentrated in such a way as to represent a target. A sufficient domestic manufacturing base in support of military platforms, equipment, and transport does not exist. The key areas of domestic vulnerability (terror cells, open borders, global trade dependencies, petroleum supply, perplexed political spirit) are inadequately defended. Also there is the intangible but politically constraining fact that the present chief executive leadership has a very limited tenure in office.

The good news is that Iran, even with jihadist allies, is in even a worse position in terms of running a war against the USA.

Paper planning to respond to any direct attack on us or Israel, of course we need and want; but a global grand strategy to change unilaterally the course of history in the Middle East, led by military forces and with the resources they presently have at hand, as well as the paucity of allies of the right size and in the right position, is complete lunancy. Our society is not that stupid, just as it is not that aggressive without a lot more provocation as a basis for reaction. If we get that stupid, then the public must demand a return to conscription, with college graudates picked first to fill in as fresh and ordinary enlistees/draftees. Believe it, the type of war wildly speculated upon, would require lots more people for a long period of time.

For uncensored news please go to:

otherside123.blogspot.com
www.wsws.org
www.takingaimradio.info
www.onlinejournal.com

On Iran, Iraq, the Democrats and Climate Change
An Interview with Noam Chomsky

By MICHAEL SHANK

Shank: With similar nuclear developments in North Korea and Iran, why has the United States pursued direct diplomacy with North Korea but refuses to do so with Iran?

Chomsky: To say that the United States has pursued diplomacy with North Korea is a little bit misleading. It did under the Clinton administration, though neither side completely lived up to their obligations. Clinton didn't do what was promised, nor did North Korea, but they were making progress. So when Bush came into the presidency, North Korea had enough uranium or plutonium for maybe one or two bombs, but then very limited missile capacity. During the Bush years it's exploded. The reason is, he immediately canceled the diplomacy and he's pretty much blocked it ever since.

They made a very substantial agreement in September 2005 in which North Korea agreed to eliminate its enrichment programs and nuclear development completely. In return the United States agreed to terminate the threats of attack and to begin moving towards the planning for the provision of a light water reactor, which had been promised under the framework agreement. But the Bush administration instantly undermined it. Right away, they canceled the international consortium that was planning for the light water reactor, which was a way of saying we're not going to agree to this agreement. A couple of days later they started attacking the financial transactions of various banks. It was timed in such a way to make it clear that the United States was not going to move towards its commitment to improve relations. And of course it never withdrew the threats. So that was the end of the September 2005 agreement.

That one is now coming back, just in the last few days. The way it's portrayed in the U.S. media is, as usual with the government's party line, that North Korea is now perhaps a little more amenable to accept the September 2005 proposal. So there's some optimism. If you go across the Atlantic, to the Financial Times, to review the same events they point out that an embattled Bush administration, it's their phrase, needs some kind of victory, so maybe it'll be willing to move towards diplomacy. It's a little more accurate I think if you look at the background.

But there is some minimal sense of optimism about it. If you look back over the record-and North Korea is a horrible place nobody is arguing about that-on this issue they've been pretty rational. It's been a kind of tit-for-tat history. If the United States is accommodating, the North Koreans become accommodating. If the United States is hostile, they become hostile. That's reviewed pretty well by Leon Sigal, who's one of the leading specialists on this, in a recent issue of Current History. But that's been the general picture and we're now at a place where there could be a settlement on North Korea.

That's much less significant for the United States than Iran. The Iranian issue I don't think has much to do with nuclear weapons frankly. Nobody is saying Iran should have nuclear weapons ­nor should anybody else. But the point in the Middle East, as distinct from North Korea, is that this is center of the world's energy resources. Originally the British and secondarily the French had dominated it, but after the Second World War, it's been a U.S. preserve. That's been an axiom of U.S. foreign policy, that it must control Middle East energy resources. It is not a matter of access as people often say. Once the oil is on the seas it goes anywhere. In fact if the United States used no Middle East oil, it'd have the same policies. If we went on solar energy tomorrow, it'd keep the same policies. Just look at the internal record, or the logic of it, the issue has always been control. Control is the source of strategic power.

Dick Cheney declared in Kazakhstan or somewhere that control over pipeline is a "tool of intimidation and blackmail." When we have control over the pipelines it's a tool of benevolence. If other countries have control over the sources of energy and the distribution of energy then it is a tool of intimidation and blackmail exactly as Cheney said. And that's been understood as far back as George Kennan and the early post-war days when he pointed out that if the United States controls Middle East resources it'll have veto power over its industrial rivals. He was speaking particularly of Japan but the point generalizes.

So Iran is a different situation. It's part of the major energy system of the world.

Shank: So when the United States considers a potential invasion you think it's under the premise of gaining control? That is what the United States will gain from attacking Iran?

Chomsky: There are several issues in the case of Iran. One is simply that it is independent and independence is not tolerated. Sometimes it's called successful defiance in the internal record. Take Cuba. A very large majority of the U.S. population is in favor of establishing diplomatic relations with Cuba and has been for a long time with some fluctuations. And even part of the business world is in favor of it too. But the government won't allow it. It's attributed to the Florida vote but I don't think that's much of an explanation. I think it has to do with a feature of world affairs that is insufficiently appreciated. International affairs is very much run like the mafia. The godfather does not accept disobedience, even from a small storekeeper who doesn't pay his protection money. You have to have obedience otherwise the idea can spread that you don't have to listen to the orders and it can spread to important places.

For the rest please go to:

http://www.counterpunch.org/shank02222007.html

Mr. Arkin.

Still waiting for that hard-hitting story on your part, reporting on the obscene amenities being provided to our troops overseas.

*chrrp-chrrp*

Still waiting.

Somewhere in his comments, Mr. Arkin mentioned the possibility of a successful war with Iran, if I understood his article correctly. Just like the one in Iraq?

Truth? Try Insanity. A ground invasion would be ultimately suicidal. If they do go forward with it, they'd better not stick around. Scorch earth and retreat. The US does not possess the military endurance needed to push that kind of a program. The Iranian leadership knows this, which is why they're prancing their nuclear ambitions before a mired US.

I'm positive we have contingency plans for Iran today because we had them in the 80s when major exercises (Gallant Knight/Gallant Eagle) were built around them. However, if one contemplates a ground war with Iran one has to, as Arkin points out, deal with the logistics issue. Despite Iraq being "controlled" by American forces, trying to support an offensive from it will be difficult because the logistics trail will be channelized and subject to ambushes and EID attacks its whole length, hardly what one could call dependable. Add to that the requirement to keep a lid on the rest of Iraq AND the huge difference between flat difficult to defend Iraq versus mountainous a hundred defendable points in a mile Iran, and one sees that to move on Iran without settling the Iraq matter would be total folly. For the life of me I don't see how it could be done before Iran develops nukes and then the whole ball game changes.

As Mr. Arkin points out and I've long held, it's interesting to consider how the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan have given U.S. war planners open air corridors on both the east and west sides of Iran. Unchallenged overflight is a great tactical advantage for surprise and greatly increases the possible directions from which air strikes on Iran may originate. If U.S. air bases within Iraq and Afghanistan were utilized in addition to assets in the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman, cruise missile / bomber strikes could be off the ground and over geographically dispersed targets inside Iran in a matter of minutes with sorties originating from multiple directions. Less time in the air equals less time for detection and even less for reaction on the ground. Shorter flight times allow larger bomb loads. More directions equals more confusion.

To suggest that G.W.Bush didn't have Iran on his mind when he made the case to invade Iraq is a bit self-deceiving, I'd say. Iran has been the real rogue element in the Middle East for years. In my opinion, Iraq and Afghanistan are simply side shows, pretexts for establishing beachheads and precursors to the main event.

The Rev:
"I repeat again, in 2008 the United States Government will be up for sale again to the highest bidder. If you can get a couple of investors to go along with you, don't buy a sports franchise; instead purchase the control of a nation with the largest economy, your very own Supreme Court, Congress and military.

Then you can get rich and make your friends rich..."

I've got to admit Rev, you are a hoot... Purchase the country and then get rich... Wow.

"They're coming to take me away Ha Ha,
They're coming to take me away Ho Ho
To the funny farm where life is beautiful all day long."

I think you've been gone for a while Rev, I'm surprised they allow you access to a computer...

For uncensored news please go to:

otherside123.blogspot.com
www.wsws.org
www.takingaimradio.info
www.onlinejournal.com

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_1791.shtml

Democrats reinforce "war on terrorism" lie

By Larry Chin
Online Journal Associate Editor

In another display of true colors, the Democrats are considering legislation to limit the Bush administration's war powers in Iraq to "fighting Al-Qaeda."

This deception clearly demonstrates, once again, that the Democrats are politically and morally bankrupt -- and every bit as enthusiastic as the Bush administration in spreading the endless "war on terrorism" conquest to every corner of the world.

It is no surprise, given six years of enthusiastic bipartisan Washington cooperation on 9/11 (a US-orchestrated covert operation) and the "war on terrorism," that we find the Democrats clinging to the same original "Al-Qaeda" lie as that still being ruthlessly wielded by Dick Cheney.

Fact: "Islamic terrorism" is a creation and instrument of Anglo-American policy.

Fact: "Islamic terrorists," including "Al-Qaeda," have been, and continue to be, assets of US military-intelligence since the end of the Cold War.

As written by Michel Chossudovsky in his book, America's "War on Terrorism": "Members of Congress were fully cognizant of the links between the US administration and Al-Qaeda. They knew exactly who Osama bin Laden was -- a pawn in the hands of the Clinton, and later, the Bush administration. Despite this knowledge, Republicans and Democrats in unison gave their full support to the President to 'wage war on Osama.'"

The Democrats have always supported the "war on terrorism" and its natural expansion to the conquests of Afghanistan and Iraq, and beyond.

The war in Iraq has been an "Al-Qaeda" propaganda war, an "anti-terrorist" cleansing, justified by the same bipartisan-supported lie of 9/11, from day one.

The Orwellian truth behind the comments of Dick Cheney is that the real "Al-Qaeda strategy" is bipartisan (and he knows it). Both Democrats and neocons alike push the enduring propaganda that all opposition to US occupation, all insurgencies, and "sectarian" violence are linked to "Al-Qaeda." Any "enemy" of US interests (most recently Iran) is connected to "Al-Qaeda," or eventually transformed into "Al-Qaeda."

A policy limiting US forces in Iraq to fighting the "Al-Qaeda" apparatus means that there will be no limit. No limit to troop strength. No limit in scope. No change in US policy.

No opposition, but absolute knowing cooperation, with the Bush administration.

No end to boundless criminality.
No limit to the war, even as the Bush administration continues to provoke Iran, and sets up "the next 9/11," paving the way for a full-scale holocaust that could begin at any moment.

Sean #1 says: I read the entire post and none of the stories you posted were proven to be antiwar war protesters spitting on soldiers. "

Sean: What, are you high? NYT pulitzer prize winning reporters and Medal of Honor winners stating it as fact? I guess if that is not good enough for you, then you had to be there watching it...but people like you would convince yourself you did not see it anyway...how old are you anyway Sean #1? I am 44 just so you know...I am asking because you seem awful defensive about this particular incident...usually, in my experience it masks a baby boomer leftist...are you like somwhere between say 52-62? Just wondering...

REV SAYS: How About A Plan To Eliminate Poverty in America?

Sean: How about you lead by example Rev...lets talk about what you are doing personally to stop homelessness? Why is it always someone elses job to fix REV? I mean you got a spare couch right?

Posted by: Sean | February 26, 2007 02:46 PM

Sean #1
"What is amazing about the spitting myth is the truth of how many veterans threw away military decorations and metals to protest the Vietnam War. I recall seeing over a dozen veterans at once toss all of their metals and decorations into a river to protest the war. I guess you're going to say this was a "liberal lefty lie".

Sean: I actually really respect those who tossed their medals and "meant it"...if you throw your medals away, from a soldiers perspective, you are saying that I no longer own these medals...they are not mine and I have no connection to them...those who pretended to throw them away, well that is even more weasely than Mr Arkin...and that is saying something....

Posted by: Sean | February 26, 2007 02:42 PM

Sean #1 says: I read the entire post and none of the stories you posted were proven to be antiwar war protesters spitting on soldiers. "

Sean: What, are you high? NYT pulitzer prize winning reporters and Medal of Honor winners stating it as fact? I guess if that is not good enough for you, then you had to be there watching it...but people like you would convince yourself you did not see it anyway...how old are you anyway Sean #1? I am 44 just so you know...I am asking because you seem awful defensive about this particular incident...usually, in my experience it masks a baby boomer leftist...are you like somwhere between say 52-62? Just wondering...

What about the American linchpin?

And before the prescient American Bushtanistas could proceed with their plans to topple each of the nations and their leaders that were mentioned in Mr. Arkin's writings, they recognized that the most critical linchpin of them all would be the recaptured Presidency of the United States of America (which Bill Clinton had temporarily stolen away from the Reagan Nation and Bush Party 41).

And, along with the assistance of the revived 'Republican Red nation', religious cells led by their indomitable and chiastic leaders, the Florida Elections Committee, and the Supreme Court, the Bushtanistas successfully regained power, and in effect gained control of all of the branches of the American government.

Some Americans recognized then, that the same Party and its leader who have later come to occupy Iraq, is the same party and regime, which began to occupy the United States of America. And they have been occupying this country for just over 6 years now!

I repeat again, in 2008 the United States Government will be up for sale again to the highest bidder. If you can get a couple of investors to go along with you, don't buy a sports franchise; instead purchase the control of a nation with the largest economy, your very own Supreme Court, Congress and military.

Then you can get rich and make your friends rich, as you completely ignore the will of the majority of American people. Also, if you care to knock off a country or two along the way; perhaps your last vacation to the 'old country' was not satisfactory! Now you can simply have your military that you purchased with the help of your investor's to knock 'em off!

The Bushtanistas rule and will not stop until they get to Baghdad. Oops, they are already there. Who will be next?

The posters here seem to underestimate this Administration...

Even casual reading of the news in he monts since the election reveals that this is no more an exercise than Cheney's pushing Tommie Franks to plan for Iraq.

And the Supreme Court will not stop them. It's packed with conservatives. And they would claim Congress has no jurisdiction under Mr. Bush's Commander in Chief duties.

But this group appears to have wanted to frame the Constitution much more narrowly from the beginning, and increase concentration of power with the Executive branch.

If I'm not mistake that used to be called Fascism.

But the president slept through mid Twentieth century history at whatever overpriced East Coast School he went to.

If Bush were to order an airstrike on Iran, Congress and the Supreme Court should have him in handcuffs, being led to the brig!

If the Pentagon did not have plans for war with Iran, N. Vietnam, even China - they would not be doing their job.

There had better be plans for any number of unforeseen clashes with hostile countries.

Of course, when something major does happen - if we didn't have a plan ready for reaction, the critics would all cry out, "They're incompetant! They're asleep at the wheel!" or some such nonsense...

To be clear, and to beat the dead horse for those who can't seem to grasp this...this does not mean we have made the decision to go to war and are making plans to carry out those plans - we are not "planning for war." Get it?

Bob, why would they not go to war, it works every time in the polls. Still enough dumb asses out there like lonemule, to fall for that crap. Declare war on Iran over some construed atrocity committed against the United States right before the 08 election and bingo, neocons are back in charge till the new Iranian War grows old and then start another. What amazes me is why they didn't go to war with Iran before the last elction, oh, I forgot, they thought "plan A" KKKarl Rove could keep their majorities. Can't count on KKKarl anymore, so fall back on "plan B", go to war with Iran? Strange how all the conservatives that post here never have an opinion about going to war with Iran?

Puh-Leeeze. If no one has noticed.
This administration is going to go to war with Iran whether Congress, the People of the United States or Mr. Bush's Pooch are against it.
This is government out of control-led by a Vice President who knows he is playing against time. And He has nothing to loose.
Either that or it is an extremely cynical effort to return the Republicans to control of all three Houses by 2012.
Chances of a Republican taking the Presidency in 08. Not so Hot given the likelihood of troops being in Iraq this time next year, maybe on January 21, 2009. Fire Ants are more popular right now.
So Give President ________ (fill in the blank-Clinton, Obama, Richardson, whoever)a world war causing a world class energy crisis in the hopes that the gullible 51% will rise up again in 2012 and elect Jeb. In my part of the country where politics "ain't bean bag" this is called the 'leave a big warm bag of you-know-what-behind-you-for-the-next-guy' approach.
Cynical. But wait til you wake up one morning and Fox News is yapping some slogan like "Thunder and Awe" in Iran.
Posted by: bob | February 26, 2007 02:08 PM

Puh-Leeeze. If no one has noticed.

This administration is going to go to war with Iran whether Congress, the People of the United States or Mr. Bush's Pooch are against it.

This is government out of control-led by a Vice President who knows he is playing against time. And He has nothing to loose.

Either that or it is an extremely cynical effort to return the Republicans to control of all three Houses by 2012.

Chances of a Republican taking the Presidency in 08. Not so Hot given the likelihood of troops being in Iraq this time next year, maybe on January 21, 2009. Fire Ants are more popular right now.

So Give President ________ (fill in the blank-Clinton, Obama, Richardson, whoever)a world war causing a world class energy crisis in the hopes that the gullible 51% will rise up again in 2012 and elect Jeb. In my part of the country where politics "ain't bean bag" this is called the 'leave a big warm bag of you-know-what-behind-you-for-the-next-guy' approach.

Cynical. But wait til you wake up one morning and Fox News is yapping some slogan like "Thunder and Awe" in Iran.

Wiredog + Arkin = Foul stench of the "we hate America" Left!

By the way what was the purpose of Arkin's post and who cares what he writes anymore?

http://www.iran-daily.com/1385/2792/html/national.htm#top

Rafsanjani: US Seeking Larger Regional Presence

TEHRAN, Feb. 26--State Expediency Council Chairman Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani said on Sunday the US wants to further increase its presence in the region, noting that it already has bases in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Bahrain and Azerbaijan.
Rafsanjani was addressing the Iranian Police's 6th Ideological and Political Conference attended by religious and security officials, IRNA reported.
"Foreigners have turned their eyes on the region to secure vital interests. These interests are so crucial that they are ready to fight for them," he said.
"The eyes of arrogant world powers are focused on the Middle East--its resources, energy, oil and gas."
The SEC chief noted that the US, with its increasing need for energy, has planted the Zionist Israeli regime in the region so as to advance its interests in the sensitive region through means such as causing discord and promoting the sale of military hardware.
"US President Bush proposed the Greater Middle East Initiative, which is aimed at increasing US presence in the region. The US has spent over 400 billion dollars for the plan which has seen thousands dead and tens of thousands of others injured," he said.
Rafsanjani also said the plan has met with obstacles, one of which is due to the effects of Islamic Revolution in the region.
He said US officials have explicitly stated that they spent "billions of dollars in the region but the Islamic Revolution is enjoying the benefits".
When American officials warned Iraqi President Jalal Talabani that Iran was interfering in Iraqi affairs, Talabani responded by saying, "Iraqi officials are friends of Iran".
The SEC chief then urged the Iranian nation, armed forces and police to act wisely under the current circumstances.
"The leader (Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei) has precise control over events ... He will give the necessary orders and will lead the nation when necessary," he said.
Rafsanjani then outlined the clergy's active participation in the national arenas and their constructive role in the victory of the Islamic Revolution.

No one, especially Napolean Bush and his aide, Mr Cheney; have the slightest idea of what taking on Iran will mean. A united Arab front throughout the middle east and up into Mancuria and East to the Chinese border, most of northern Africa will join Iran in opposition to Democracy. Tribal nations know nothing, and DO NOT WANT DEMOCRACY! Nor have they considered Freedom for over 3000 years. And we are no longer in any position in any area to take on such a large "Enemy" or group of Terrorists.

Impeachment by the spineless Congress is the only method of stopping this crazy spiral!

Olerb

There is not a single country in the ME that has oil reserves that doesn't think of a potential attack from the US if it doesn't play ball with us. But there is more to Iran that what you write, yes, the Iranians are pursuing a nuclear program, because their oil reserves will be gone in two generations. As with any country with nuclear power, nuclear weapons are just a few centrifuges away.

Much of the posturing from the US can basically be rooted in a few reasons:

1. To deflect public criticism away from a failed Iraq policy by creating a greater threat from Iran.

2. To deflect attention away from the countries (Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Pakistan) that are funding 95% of the attacks on our troops by Sunni insurgents and Al Qaeda as opposed to 5% of the attacks from the Iranian backed Shia. What puzzles me is why we don't publicize more of what is coming out of Syria in regards to Iraq, is it because our Sunni Saudi friends don't want the Sunni Syria attacked? Strange how much of the evidence that Iran is behind IEDs and EFPs compiled by our military had English writing on it? Looks more like Halliburton not keeping very good inventory or security on materials that can used to produce IEDs or EFPs.

3. There is always the truth that we are planning and in some ways trying to instigate a war with Iran. Good excuse to get the troops out of Iraq! Just move them to the East to invade Iran. In all reality a very stupid move, considering Iran is about twice as large as Iraq and has about twice the population as Iraq. The Iranian military is well armed and it would not be that difficult to take out our aircraft carriers with the Chinese built missiles in Iranian possession at almost point blank range. Such a move would galvanize the Iraqi Shiites to rise in support of Iran, something that will create an all out civil war in Iraq, as opposed to the low level civil war that now exists. We would have the Shia coming at us more than Al Qaeda and the Sunni in Iraq. To search for or remove WMDs or nuclear facilities in Iran will require a ground invasion, we don't have the troops or the allies, and we would need a draft to under go a unilateral Iranian War. That would have us fighting three wars at once in the ME.

Interesting. The first 4 comments are all by people who obviously didn't read the actual blog entry.

"che" never does. He just uses this blog to link-spam his site.

"The Lonemule" is probably a script that auto-posts to any entry in this blog.

"Jerry Garrison" read the entry, but didn't comprehend it well. He says "There is a very large difference between developing contingency plans ... and actually planning on going to war." As if Mr. Arkin hadn't said just that.

"P. J. Casey" apparently read an entry which stated that the US was planning an immediate attack against Iran, which certainly wasn't this entry.

Football:

It sounds like the old misdirection play, or how about the ole' 'Student Body Right' play from the U.S.C. college playbook.

Tell the truth?

Question #1: When do members of the Bush Administration lie?
Answer: Easy, whenever any one of them opens their mouths.

Question #2:

When does the Bush Administration tell the truth to the American public?

Answer: We're waiting.

Question #3: Can you believe that Bush and his ilk swore upon the Bible, upon assuming their various offices?

Answer: Yes. And by the way, did Scoter Libby swear on the Bible, when defending himself for 'misremembering' when he debriefed by the FBI, when on trial?

Nah, his handlers were smart enough not to put him on the stand.

When you think about it, these folks pitted Iraq against Iran, and vice versa. They had hoped to sit back, watch the carnage and befriend the victor, well for a little wall anyway.

Unfortunately, Iran and Iraq failed to cooperate, so now America has to destroy both of them; one down and one to go!

Whose next? Vatican City perhaps?

These people would have to be insane to start a war with Iran. We don't have enough troops to cover Iraq and Afghanistan, and ground operations against Iran are not an option. If there is an air attack against Iran's nuclear facilities, God knows how many Chrenobyls will be created. For those who care about Israel, they will be subjected to attacks by conventional missiles, They could look like Berlin after WWII. American interestd would be attack around the world by many terrorists groups. These people need to be impeached. they have no brain.

Arkin = Nonsense
Arkin = Liberal Bias
Arkin = B.S.

Mr Arkin has again misrepresented what is being said. There is a very large difference between developing contingency plans for going to war with Iran and actually planning on "going to war". Nice try at spinning the facts Mr Arkin, unfortunately your bias is again very transparent.

For uncensored news please go to:

otherside123.blogspot.com
www.wsws.org
www.takingaimradio.info
www.onlinejournal.com

US war drums beat louder after Iran fails to meet UN deadline

By Peter Symonds
26 February 2007

The Bush administration is intensifying the pressure on Iran following its refusal to abide by last week's UN deadline to suspend its uranium enrichment and other nuclear programs. While publicly pushing for a new UN Security Council resolution with tougher economic and diplomatic sanctions against Tehran, the US is also pressing ahead with preparations for a military attack on Iran.

After months of US bullying, the UN Security Council finally passed an initial resolution last December imposing sanctions and setting a two-month deadline for Iran to shut down its nuclear activities. Tehran, however, has insisted on its right under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to engage in all aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle, including the production of enriched uranium for its nuclear power plants. It has rejected US allegations that it is conducting a secret nuclear program.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) issued a formal report last Thursday--the day after the deadline passed--confirming that Iran was continuing to expand its uranium enrichment plant at Natanz and construct a heavy water research reactor at Arak. The report is yet to be publicly released, but the US and international media have highlighted Iranian plans to complete the installation of 3,000 gas centrifuges in its Natanz facility by May. At the same time, the IAEA has again found no proof that Iran is seeking to build a nuclear bomb.

Washington has seized on the IAEA report to mount a new diplomatic offensive against Iran. US Undersecretary of State Nicolas Burns is due to meet in London today with senior officials from the other permanent Security Council members--Britain, France, Russia and China--as well as Germany to draw up a new UN resolution. Burns denounced Iran last week for "thumbing its nose" at the international community.

The "international community" is far from united, however. It was only reluctantly that Russia and China agreed to last December's resolution. Russia's UN ambassador Vitaly Churkin called for a diplomatic solution to the crisis, saying the goal of discussions was not a new resolution and new sanctions, but "a political outcome". However, by refusing to openly challenge the bellicose American stance, Russia, China and the European powers provided the US actions with a thin veneer of UN legitimacy.

The Bush administration has not the slightest interest in a political settlement. American officials have made clear that the US intends to tighten the sanctions regime against Iran, with or without UN approval. According to the Scotsman, Burns will be pushing to widen the existing trade and economic restrictions to cover more Iranian companies and increase the number of Iranian officials placed under travel restrictions. The US also wants to impose a ban on the practice of European governments of extending loans to cover transactions with Iran.

For the rest please go to:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/feb2007/iran-f26.shtml