N. Korea announcement

[Brewloc]

Pyongyang said it has "manufactured nukes for self-defense to cope with the Bush administration's undisguised policy to isolate and stifle" North Korea, and that it will "bolster its nuclear weapons arsenal."

NY Times <-- Now a dead link - go figure!!

Many different stories off google news this morning.

Google News (http://news.google.com)

So, Iran or NK? NO way we could do both in the next four years.

[Coolio]

weird isnt, bush didnt have concrete proof that irak had nukes, and he attacked, now north korea has nukes, and was known to have or be making nukes for a while, and bush hasnt really done anything.

[DarkAce]

SEOUL, South Korea - North Korea announced for the first time Thursday it has nuclear weapons and rejected moves to restart disarmament talks anytime soon, saying the bombs are protection against an increasingly hostile United States.

The communist state’s statement dramatically raised the stakes in the 2-year-old nuclear confrontation and posed a grave challenge to President Bush, who started his second term with a vow to end North Korea’s nuclear program through six-nation talks.

“We ... have manufactured nukes for self-defense to cope with the Bush administration’s evermore undisguised policy to isolate and stifle the (North),” the North Korean Foreign Ministry said in a statement carried by the state-run Korean Central News Agency. The news agency used the colloquial term “nukes” in its English-language account.

The claim could not be independently verified. North Korea expelled the last U.N. nuclear monitors in late 2002. It is not known to have tested an atomic bomb, although international officials have long suspected it has one or two nuclear weapons.

The CIA has estimated that with a highly enriched uranium weapons program and the use of sophisticated high-speed centrifuges North Korea could be making more.

A U.S. official told NBC News' Robert Windrem on Thursday that U.S. intelligence would not dispute a reported estimate of six to eight nuclear weapons in North Korea's possession.

"That is generally within the range of estimates," the official said on condition of anonymity.

"But it is soft. It is between the low and high ends of intelligence estimates," the official said, noting that the Department of Energy has said North Korea could have as many as 10 or 12.

"What the North said today confirms what our intelligence has been for more than a decade," the official said.

However, the official declined to comment on whether North Korea has built missile warheads rather than just gravity bombs.

A recent Air Force analysis states that they are believed to have "fewer than 50" ballistic missiles capable of delivering a nuclear weapon and none of those have a range of more than 800 miles — capable of reaching anywhere in South Korea or Japan, but not the United States.


For further analysis, click:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6944560/

[Strife]

The latest news "is not being treated as a crisis" and that "the white house is commited to a peaceful diplomatic solution"......What? So this is not a crisis but Iran is?

O.K., both North Korea and Iran are a part of this "axis of evil" as Bush put it. Both are hostile agains't the U.S. because of this asshole. Its UNBELIEVABLE that this man is still President, going on to 8 years now, yet it is clearly acceptable for the dumb f***s in this country. Sorry, but I'm angry and always will be against this country.

Look, look over there! They have WMDs too! More DMW (dead men walking) for us!

Edit: My apologies for the tone.

[DarkAce]

Although technically from what I gather from the policies they've initiated, they should be going into NK and Iran. Will they however? Seems like they may be biting their nails on that one because I don't see how they can resolve this diplomatically while not contradicting even more so their own policies.

[VegasRonin]

I wonder how many people would willingly desire to live in Iran or NK, under its current leadership? After all, they're not evil countries or part of any evil axis. They're lovely vacation spots, damn near bordering on Paradise!

We've been there for Iran but have received no grattitude!
Monday, December 29, 2003 — After a massive earthquake struck Iran’s southeastern Kerman Province Friday (Dec. 26), relief teams are focused on helping thousands left homeless in the devastated ancient city of Bam.

“This team will provide further assessment of the needs of the population affected, and the American Red Cross will continue to work with its partner national societies to assist the vulnerable in Iran,” said Douglas K. Allen, director of the International Disaster Response Unit at the American Red Cross.

We've helped feed North Korea. (http://www.iht.com/articles/87898.html)
Yeah, I see it clearly now. Our policies against these countries are so aggressive and evil! :gtfo:

[ALIENTheorist]

now north korea has nukes, and was known to have or be making nukes for a while, and bush hasnt really done anything.


they don't have enaugh oil!!! lol

anyways here comes the start of a nuclear war!
some will want to protect themselfs against bush therefore they'll build some bush will try to stop them, more will get nukes, more will join up with bush to stop the nuke builders(but their not counting themsleves), then they use all they got and GoodBye.... easy circle and fallow of events which appears to have many possibilities of happening

[SIXshotsONEheart]

i love how we're allowed to have nukes but no one else. i think the Nation's slogan should be "Bitch Please!" an example you say?

Iraq: Mr. President sire, can we have some nukes please?
US:...Bithc Please!

N. Korea:We have nukes but only because you do, and you scare us
US: oooohhh. well in that case...Bitch Please!

...etc...

[VegasRonin]

i love how we're allowed to have nukes but no one else. Do you really want Iran and North Korea to have nuclear weapons? Would that make everything even for you , and allow you to sleep better at night?

[DarkAce]

There's a difference between international aid, and political foreign policy...
Not to forget the american pre-emptive strike policies...
They'd look like quite the donkey's ass if they don't do something, but damned if they do, too.

[MetalMilitia]

Do you really want Iran and North Korea to have nuclear weapons? Would that make everything even for you , and allow you to sleep better at night?You're a dingbat if you criticize the US, you're a dingbat if you criticize Iran.

Look at the neighborhood Iran is in - Pakistan, Israel, India - then they got the US, UK, France and Russia to deal with.

The US - right now - is throwing around more wild accusations with Iran - look how well that went in Iraq. You can't tell me if you had a country in that neighborhood of the world - with nearly ever nuclear power in the world surrounding you and threatening you - you would stray away from some sort of nuclear agenda. It's "do as I say not as I do."

BTW - no one has shown ANY INTEL whatsoever that Iran has nukes - or is making something other than a power plant. Perhaps you recall how "solid" our intel was with Iraq. They realize that the OIL everyone wants and needs from them won't last forever - so it's also good economically (from their point of view) to proceed with trying to obtain nuclear technology. Another thing : Iran is letting in the IAEA and inspectors - Hell, they are even acknowledging their nuclear program ambitions - Israel Never has publically. Call it an oversight - borderline double standard. It is questionable whether Israel should be classed as a "suspected state" at this point. Israel is not a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and refuses to officially admit or deny having a nuclear arsenal, or to having developed nuclear weapons, or even to having a nuclear weapons program.

Here is the moronic part - before we started accusing Iraq of having "weapons of mass destruction" - and leading this "war on terror" - There were 7 (8) delcared nuclear powers. US, Russia, China, France, UK, India and Pakistan (and Israel) - Assuming N. Korea isn't bluffing, the global policy of wild accusations and threats doesn't seem to be working. We won't engage N. Korea one on one - even though they are WILLING to talk that way.

Whatever happened to Mutually Assured Destruction? That was such a better way of looking at the situation. Such a warm and friendly phrase.

[Bigsky770]

. . .I must make my 2 cents known; We cannot "know" whether-or-not "Iran" is just bluffing or not, it's too easy NOW for a country TOO procure that which it needs in order to construct a nuclear device; As we are still in the progress of establishing better intelligence after our lapse of the 90's (mind you, this is a long, hard road) we cannot just 'drop' those who collect info. into these regions in a half-hearted, silly manuever that would point the finger right back at us (shame on you, America! for trying to KNOW what we are up to!). It can take 15-20 YEARS to establishing viable intelligence-gathering networks with good, hard evidence, which leaves us with what? Only their word to go on. What to do? Can we afford to "let it ride" and hope they are bluffing? We cannot ignore the instability that this causes to a region when we cannot know their end-goals. As they are a nation founded upon the ideologies of Extreme-Fundamentalist-Muslim, I would think their goals in the end-all [of this] are much less than desirable.
. . .About North Korea; Fact is, they ARE NOT the only ones' in that region; They are making EVERYONE awful nervous with their talk, At least we are willing to admit this; IT AIN'T ONLY about us, and ANY TALKS MUST BE inclusive of all the affected nations in that region. We are concerned with an 'arms race' that could see the procurement of nuclear weaponry by Japan and Taiwan, which in TURN would be seen as 'saber-rattling' by China, and in turn force them to act. Talks cannot be dealt with on a basis expressly FOR North Korea, as it would be reduced to a "what's in it for me?" deal, which is really what North Korea WANTS. That is tantamount to 'hostage negotiations' and I see no problem with OUR REJECTION OF SAME.
They're going to have to come-up with something BETTER than that; The REASON they do NOT WANT other nations to be a part of these negotiations is that it would put it right-out there for all to see this posturing for what it REALLY is. "Gimmee THIS (or) I'll do that", sorta thing. They just do not want to have to SHOW their 'true colours' in all of this, we are showing them that they will have to.

Joe (Bigsky770) :vbroll:

[VegasRonin]

Look at the neighborhood Iran is in - Pakistan, Israel, India - then they got the US, UK, France and Russia to deal with.Iran doesn’t have to worry about Pakistan, after all it’s a fellow Islamic state, and they have that Islamic Brotherhood n’ stuff going on. Right? Israel couldn’t care less about Iran, unless Iran develops Nukes. We all know how many Islamic states even acknowledge Israels’ right to exist, 2 in case ya don’t know (Saudi and Egypt). India doesn’t care about Iran either. They scuffle with Pakistan on a regular basis over Cashmere (Go figure). As far as US,UK, and Russia; They’re only concerned with the nuclear missiles. They’ve all offered to give Iran peaceful nuclear tech.

The US - right now - is throwing around more wild accusations with Iran - look how well that went in Iraq.Frickin travesty! Free democratic elections, and the fall of a tyrant.

We won't engage N. Korea one on one - even though they are WILLING to talk that way.Every past administration has given in to NK’s blackmail except this one. One must ask themselves, why NK doesn’t want to engage with talks while their neighbors are present? I’ll tell you why. In Asian culture “Saving Face” is Paramount. They know that the US isn’t going to invade them, they don’t want their neighbors present when they beg the US for food for their citizens. People that they could feed if they didn’t field a 2 million man army, verily sucking the lifeblood from their country.

Whatever happened to Mutually Assured Destruction? That was such a better way of looking at the situation. Such a warm and friendly phrase.The only bad thing with the MAD concept is that we were the only ones practicing this philosophy. Russia and China both have extensive underground safehavens; which are basically fully functional cities. While the US only has such enclaves for our leadership and special chosen few. Our communist enemies had/have every intent on surviving (With their people) a nuclear war so its not quite a MAD doctrine on our part.

[VegasRonin]

Talks cannot be dealt with on a basis expressly FOR North Korea, as it would be reduced to a "what's in it for me?" deal, which is really what North Korea WANTS. That is tantamount to 'hostage negotiations' and I see no problem with OUR REJECTION OF SAME. PREACH IT BROTHER!! :mad:

[MetalMilitia]

Frickin travesty! Free democratic elections, and the fall of a tyrant.
And still no results - even the latest count (before they froze the couting due to "irregularities) has an Ayotolla - with ties to Iran leading the ballot. Did you think the Iraqis were gonna vote for the US backed party? Thank god for "democracy".

Israel couldn’t care less about Iran, unless Iran develops Nukes. We all know how many Islamic states even acknowledge Israels’ right to exist, 2 in case ya don’t know (Saudi and Egypt).

The Bush administration is making the same mistakes with Iran that it made with Iraq. It makes allegations unsupported by facts, refuses to negotiate and threatens sanctions or military action, neither of which is feasible.

So a country operating with IAEA guidelines is in the wrong when dealing with nukes..... gotcha.

Each no-nuke signatory agrees to conclude with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) a Safeguards agreement. All "source" and "special fissionable materials" as well as any activities involving them are to be made subject to the IAEA Safeguards agreement. The IAEA is thereafter responsible for preventing their "diversion."

That means that Iran is required to subject to IAEA Safeguards all uranium, plutonium and thorium – in whatever form and however obtained – as well as all activities wherein safeguarded materials are transformed, produced or processed.

But having a country just down the road that won't even ADMIT or ACKNOWLEDE it's program is just fine, I'm sure.

[MetalMilitia]

http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=3607

Just dismiss the "anti war" rhetoric - I know how mad it makes ppl to think that way.

[HorrorReporter]

What is funny to me about this whole thing is that Kim Jong Il always ends up insisting on meeting BUsh one on one ! I dont get it.
Kim Jong is a huge fan of American entertainment (which is why he hated this movie and wants it banned http://www.horror-report.com/february05/korea.html ) but I just find it almost laughable that it always seems as though NK ends up demanding to meet Bush face to face one and one....
bush should just meet with him already....invite over Madeline Albright (who said Il was cute may I add in the late 90s) and watch a John Wayne movie or something...I dont know.

[substand]

We won't engage N. Korea one on one

don't forget that we tried that already. and they screwed us.

[Bigsky770]

Russia slams NK 'talks pull-out'

North Korea's announcement has attracted international criticism
Russia has criticised North Korea after it announced it was withdrawing from international disarmament talks, saying it had made the "wrong choice".
Pyongyang also said for the first time on Thursday that it had nuclear arms.

It said it needed the weapons as protection against what it considered an increasingly hostile United States.

Meanwhile North Korean state media called on its citizens to show "single-minded unity" and "devotedly protect" their leader, Kim Jong Il.

'Strongest weapon'

"If the information proves accurate, I would say North Korea has made a wrong choice," Russian Defence Minister Sergei Ivanov said at a security conference in Munich on Saturday.

"And we have to remember that this state is sharing a common border with Russia."

Since 2003, Russia has been involved six-party negotiations with the US, China, South Korea and Japan to persuade North Korea to abandon its nuclear weapons programme.

Mr Ivanov also rejected North Korea's push for bilateral talks with the US.

He said: "We should do all we can to keep that state in the (nuclear non-proliferation) treaty framework and for that purpose, compromise solutions will be required ... within the ongoing six party talks."

From this LINK:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4260833.stm

. . .It is encouraging to note this from Russia as well, Perhaps with enough of the right kind of pressure from nations in the area North Korea may be forced to reconsider. Who can say?

- - -Submitted by Joe (Bigsky770) :vbroll:

[VegasRonin]

And still no results - even the latest count (before they froze the couting due to "irregularities) has an Ayotolla - with ties to Iran leading the ballot. Did you think the Iraqis were gonna vote for the US backed party? Thank god for "democracy". With democracy, the people choose their leaders. We may not like the outcome but its their will. I have no problem with that. Besides, this Iranian backed party has a pretty good idea what will be tolerated by the West. Voting/Counting irregularities are going to be a part of any democratic process on a large scale, even our system isn't perfect.
But having a country just down the road that won't even ADMIT or ACKNOWLEDE it's program is just fine, I'm sure. This is a "No Brainer" Israel was reestablished by the West and the West has nukes so its implied that they have them too.

[MetalMilitia]

Why don't you jsut call it the biggest double standard then... is that anti-semetic or someting?

[VegasRonin]

Come on MM! Israel wants, well Israel. The Islamic countries don't want Israel to exist. Israel doesn't want to expand, they just want to be. As far as within their borders, I can understand the Palestinians conflict but their Arab neighbors have nothing to worry about. Why? That's like Canada or Mexico thinking we're going to invade them. Why? North Korea would invade the South in a heartbeat if they thought we wouldn't back up the South. Matter of fact, the North has nothing to lose, and their illustrious leader will soon run out of way to keep his army loyal. He'll almost have to start a war or give in to regime change. I don't think Iran is going to be invaded by the US. I'd be surprised if we even launched a missile strike at their nuclear complexes. I know its not out of the question but I'd still be surprised. Its not easy keeping one's country's best interests while at the same time keeping a global good guy persona. Especially in today's global climate.

[substand]

Why don't you jsut call it the biggest double standard then... is that anti-semetic or someting?

1) Israel is not run by nutjobs who are completely backward who just might use such a weapon.
2) Israel will not use the weapon against us, if they used it at all.
3) Israel's stated goal is not the destruction of all of thier Muslim neighbors
4) all of Israel's neighbors' (minus 2) have "destruction of Israel" as their ultimate foreign policy goal.

So in closing, we don't care if Israel has them because we don't beleive they will use them offensively (or first). If they did happen to use them, we are comfortable in knowing that they won't be used on us or one of our allies. The same cannot be said for the nations surrounding them. Not to mention Israel's having nukes and us on thier side is probably what has kept the area relatively peaceful all this time.

[2cool4stats]

O.K., both North Korea and Iran are a part of this "axis of evil" as Bush put it. Both are hostile agains't the U.S. because of this asshole. Its UNBELIEVABLE that this man is still President, going on to 8 years now, yet it is clearly acceptable for the dumb f***s in this country.

Crazy thing is, a self-inflicted nuclear attack on a local U.S. city would be enough "evidence" for a pretext to convince their blind patriotic mindsets that Iran has a nuclear arms program. Of course it's only speculation but considering such an absurd scenario is far less extraneous than assuming what Israel, Palestine, Russia, North Korea, etc. are thinking. Cutting to the chase, conclusion jumping only heightens the danger factor of situations and increases the spread of deadly lies.

The greatest hazard in all these world affairs is not nuclear weapons proliferation. No way. The real threat is the mass proliferation of disinformation. Disinformation is Conclusion's first cousin [Speculation is their dark horse adversary; he never hesitates to question them (He never ceases to pinpoint the potential implausibility of any political disposition and their disguised indirect\direct extensions.).].

As complex as somethings may get, the problem is actually really simple -- jumping to conclusions creates more problems than it "intends" to solve.

[substand]

Both [NK and Iran] are hostile agains't the U.S. because of this asshole.

your knowledge or memory of history doesn't go back very far, does it?


Cutting to the chase, conclusion jumping only heightens the danger factor of situations and increases the spread of deadly lies.

How can you have a brilliant observation like that in the same space as a retarded possibility as this:


a self-inflicted nuclear attack on a local U.S. city would be enough "evidence" for a pretext

?

[derangel]

When I'm at my most cynical, America seems little more than a misguided country intent on power for its own sake. Every country makes decisions based upon its own best interests, but we're just more obvious than most, apparently. Maintaining our status as THE world power is ironically like our presidential elections: if you make it to the top, it doesn't matter if you do anything worthwhile, as long as you stay at the top and do favors for your friends. It's an unhealthy combination of arrogance and ignorance. We just assume we're the best and don't take the rest of the world into account unless they pose a threat to our plans. We assume that everyone looks to us in all matters. Bush might not have been the original cause of our current international difficulties, but he hasn't really made them better in any way. Honestly, I hate the bastard. Give me a bottomless bank account and I'll graduate from Harvard, run for president, and see if I can't do a better job. But I digress.

Since this is Armageddon Online, after all, who's up for conspiracy theories? This isn't much of one, but it's an overly cynical appraisal of the current state of affairs.

First, 9/11 happened. Second, the U.S. attacked Afghanistan out of retribution; the American people needed somebody to blame, found out they lived in the Middle East, and said "well damn, let's turn it into a big glass parking lot!" Third, once Afghanistan was knocked to pieces and started rebuilding, we picked up steam and rolled merrily on our way into Iraq. Ostensibly, we attack because 1) we believe they have connections to the terrorists responsible for 9/11 and 2) we believe they may have weapons of mass destruction; both apparently false. But since we don't like Saddam, we knock him over anyway.

So now what? Well, North Korea has apparently has nukes and we suspect Iran of having them/wanting to make them. As observed before, North Korea HAS nukes and is ruled by a nasty communist dictator, yet the U.S. has no intention of invading. Iraq had NO nukes, was ruled by a nasty dictator, and happened to have access to lots of oil, so we invaded. Iran may or may not have nukes, is ruled by someone who is more competent and less insane than Saddam, and we're talking about invading them. This makes no sense to me. If we're invading countries on the basis of whether they have WMD and have motive to use them, then North Korea should be on the top of the list right now. If we're invading on the basis of corrupt rulers that we hate, then we would have long since used more than poisoned cigars on Fidel Castro in Cuba. If we're invading on the basis of oil, then we would have rolled roughshod over the Middle Eas...oh, wait.

So, with our army keeping the peace in Iraq and nominallly holding things together in Afghanistan, are we going to attack Iran and North Korea? Well, attacking Iran would probably be more difficult than attacking Iraq. For one thing, Iran is better prepared. For another thing, it's going to be harder to explain to a war-weary U.S. public and the U.N. why we should attack them. It would be stupid. Attacking North Korea probably wouldn't be the best idea right now, because although South Korea would chip in and Japan might give a hand, China is backing the North, and we don't want to fuck with them. If we REALLY wanted to solve our problems the military way, then the only way we're going to have a chance is by reinstating the draft, which no one wants, other than possibly an over-zealous government that would exploit such an army, wielding it (like its nuke supply) like so much unnecessary muscle to get what it wants.

Why are so many irrational people leaders of countries? Probably because the rational people know better than to pick unnecessary fights.

Q: What does America call a scenario in which it is assumed that all life on Earth will be eradicated by a politically induced nuclear holocaust?
A: Plan B.

[MetalMilitia]

Sam - its a god damn double standard - just say it. They won't publically acknowledge them, and they don't let in the inspectors. Period. I don't care if they are the US's Lap dog - or if we are their lap dog.


Ostensibly, we attack because 1) we believe they have connections to the terrorists responsible for 9/11 and 2) we believe they may have weapons of mass destruction; both apparently false. But since we don't like Saddam, we knock him over anyway.
Scare the people into following - fear is one powerful motive when the FACTS are skewed. If we hadn't LIED about the weapons - or the subtle "suggestions" that Iraq had something to do with 9/11 - can you honestly tell me we woulda went in gung-ho? There's dictatorships world wide, we just happen to find our way into afghanistan (where we had an nice fat oil pipeline in mind) and Iraq.

For another thing, it's going to be harder to explain to a war-weary U.S. public and the U.N. why we should attack them.
They won't have to tell (sell) anthing to the American people or to the U.N. if another attack happens...

Would I go so far (and be so sinister) as to think America would DARE carry out an attack on itself - and pin it on somone else? You're damn right I would. Governments have been doing it for as long as "governments" have been around. Why would the US be any different. http://www.armageddononline.org/faketerror.php

Now that's crazy talk.

[Brewloc]

Yepp, double standard is a good way to put it. The US 'policy' of voting at the UN as it pertains to Israel shows that outright. Connected at the hip is a term that comes to mind.

The years to come will be interesting to say the least. I keep hearing that the US is the sole superpower left, I just hope that our leaders are not so arrogant to think that a uniting (axis) of our enemies will put us in our place faster than we could have ever imagined. Is policing the world the role of the sole superpower? IMHO, no it is not.

[substand]

Sam - its a god damn double standard - just say it. They won't publically acknowledge them, and they don't let in the inspectors. Period. I don't care if they are the US's Lap dog - or if we are their lap dog.

I stand by my statement. If you want to allow governments that support terrorism and which are hostile to you and your friends, and would have no moral qualms about using nukes to have them, then its your ass who needs to be president and give it to them so they can kill us.

[substand]

As observed before, North Korea HAS nukes and is ruled by a nasty communist dictator, yet the U.S. has no intention of invading. Iraq had NO nukes, was ruled by a nasty dictator, and happened to have access to lots of oil, so we invaded. Iran may or may not have nukes, is ruled by someone who is more competent and less insane than Saddam, and we're talking about invading them. This makes no sense to me. If we're invading countries on the basis of whether they have WMD and have motive to use them, then North Korea should be on the top of the list right now. If we're invading on the basis of corrupt rulers that we hate, then we would have long since used more than poisoned cigars on Fidel Castro in Cuba. If we're invading on the basis of oil, then we would have rolled roughshod over the Middle Eas...oh, wait.


Well, attacking Iran would probably be more difficult than attacking Iraq. For one thing, Iran is better prepared. For another thing, it's going to be harder to explain to a war-weary U.S. public and the U.N. why we should attack them. It would be stupid. Attacking North Korea probably wouldn't be the best idea right now, because although South Korea would chip in and Japan might give a hand, China is backing the North, and we don't want to fuck with them.

How you use your logic to come to the correct conclusion in the 2nd quote, yet ignore that same logic in the first quote is beyond me.

No one is talking about invading Iran. We've said we won't rule out the option. Would you embolden your enemies by telling them you have already ruled out a military option? Don't put the cart before the horse. Also, the military arm should always be used as a last resort. After 12 yrs of nominally peaceful negotiations with Iraq, it was clear diplomacy wasn't going to work. After 0 years of similar negotiations with Iran, which already has a population extremely unhappy with its government, perhaps we ought to give it a little longer- don't you think? And like you said, NK has China.

[Emerald_Dragon]

>No one is talking about invading Iran. We've said we won't rule out the option

You should listen to yourself sometime.

>How you use your logic to come to the correct conclusion in the 2nd quote,
>yet ignore that same logic in the first quote is beyond me.

so no one is talking about invading Iran, but we won't rule out the option. :grin

from where i sit, i've read pages of saber rattling articles by the U.S. towards Iran, which died out about the time when China made its big oil deal with Iran. what does that mean? well, i think we were finding reasons for invading, but decided against it when China showed up. Now Israel will have to find us a reason. Bombing some Russian-built nuclear power plants in Iran would be a start. We can't use the fundamentalist Islam arguement. we can't use the cruel dictator ruse again. howbout the people are oppressed? that seemed to cover their ass in Iraq? better yet, why don't we fund their dissident groups like we did with Chalabi in Iraq? but oh, we're not a terrorist country, no, we don't support terrorists. *lol*

"double standard, hypocratic politicians"? where?