A slight diversion I think it would truly be a disaster for African countries to have nuclear weapons. We have so much infighting with ourselves and other African nations. The thought of some nutcase having nuclear weapons is a nightmare. Africa will be wiped out. But to have a say in the world and be respected it seems you need these weapons.

So I ask can Africa move forward and be respected if we don't have nuclear arms?

shango:

IF any country was getting the FREE WEAPONARY AND AID (Yes, billions in free money and weapons every fucking year from the US) that Israel was they would be a world power. All this bullshit of Israel being so great by their own doing is bullshit. And why should we as Nigerians even care about defending a racist, Apartheid state like Israel. Damn our people are something else.

Pakistan having nukes is quite alright but Iran isnt. Yeah. I see the logic behind that. Liek Pakistan doesnt have moslem fundamentalists like Iran. Like Our allies have never become our enemies and vice versa in relation to the United States. Like China wasnt a communist devil half a century ago and is now our biggest bussiness and trading partner and STILL COMMUNIST.

90% of American foreign policy and intervention is based on the prevailing fears concocted up by our warped minded politicians of the era. When they focus their attention on African nations liek Nigeria and the Niger Delta in another 20-30 years and nigeria becomes the next Iraq perhaps you all will be singing a different tune.

The US supplies SOME weaponry to Israel, but israel is by far the most technologically advanced country in the middle east on their own merit alone. Much of israel remains infertile, and Israel makes lots of money by exporting technology.
i'm pretty sure anti-americanism must be lucrative nowadays, but give credit where its due. The US didnt help Israel with its nuclear program and yet israel was able to build about 100 of them.
Here's something i culled from wikipedia

Israeli contributions to science and technology have been significant. Since the establishment of the State of Israel, Israel has worked in science and engineering. Israeli scientists have contributed in the areas of genetics, computer sciences, electronics, optics, engineering and other high-tech industries. Israeli science is well known for its military technology, as well as its work in advancing fields such as agriculture, physics, and medicine

Four Israelis have won science Nobel Prizes.

High technology industries have taken a pre-eminent role in the economy, particularly in the last decade. Israel's limited natural resources and strong emphasis on education have also played key roles in directing industry towards high technology fields. As a result of the country’s success in developing cutting edge technologies in software, communications and the life sciences, Israel is frequently referred to as a second Silicon Valley.[39] [40]

As of 2004, Israel receives more venture capital investment than any country in Europe,[41] and has the largest VC/GDP rate in the world, seven times that of the United States[citation needed]. Israel has the largest number of startup companies in the world after the United States [citation needed]. Outside the United States and Canada, Israel has the largest number of NASDAQ-listed companies.[42] Israel also has one of the highest percentage in the world of home computers per capita[citation needed].

Israel produces more scientific papers per capita than any other nation: 109 per 10,000 people.[43] It also boasts one of the highest per capita rates of patents filed.

Israel is ranked third in research and development (R&) spending; eighth in technological readiness (companies spending on R&, the creativity of its scientific community, personal computer and internet penetration rates); eleventh in innovation; sixteenth in high technology exports; and seventeenth in technological achievement in Nation Master's list of countries in the world by economy standards.

read it here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel

so you'll see that when it comes to hi-tech biz, isreal's no slouch. In fact, israel is even touted as having a better missile defense system than the US.

Also i must say im kinda confused by your classification of israel as an Apartheid and racist country. Israeli arabs are fully entitled to everything enjoyed by any israeli jew. They vote and can be voted for, they are free to do anythign they want to do. They are even the only people in Israel that are not forced to undergo the compulsory millitary service, except if they request for it.
Israel is forced to restrict access and movement of non-israeli arabs due to fear of suicide attacks. You'd do the same if it were you!


yes, Israel gets billions of 'free' money from the US. but so do many other african countries. When the US was donating cash and logistics to ECOMOG to fund activities in Liberia and Sierra Leone, where were you?

Finally, here's the passionate appeal for peace and a offering to the Arab Inhabitants of Israel made in the Israeli decaration of Independence:

in the very midst of the onslaught launched against us now for months - to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the upbuilding of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions. We extend our hand to all neighbouring states and their peoples in an offer of peace and good neighbourliness, and appeal to them to establish bonds of cooperation and mutual help with the sovereign Jewish people settled in its own land. The State of Israel is prepared to do its share in a common effort for the advancement of the entire Middle East.

We clearly see a then naive israeli govt. extend the hand of peace and friendship to their Arab inhabitants and neighbours.
their answer? Within days 5 arab armies invaded!

@Texazzpete,

No wahala.

But why do you keep labelling as "stable" some countries with nuclear weapons? What defines stability? What makes you think that the US will not use nuclear weapons if they choose to just as they used atomic bombs on 2 civilian populations (the only country to have done that)?

Nuclear weapons should be totally gotten rid of or every country should be allowed to develop them.

Does the NPT really make sense if all it takes to develop nuclear weapons is for a country not to be a signatory?

I cannot understand the logic behind Pakistan and India owning them even when they are enemies and have been fighting over Kashmir while Israel owns them but countries that are more or less termed enemies like Iran, Syria, Iraq do not.

Why place nuclear weapons in the hands of a country (Israel) and deny its enemies the opportunity to own theirs?

Do not tell me that Israel is a stable country because it just finished waging a war with Hezbollah.

Fair play, mutual respect and equity are all important if we want to see a free, peaceful and prosperous world.


@4Play,

I am sure you will feel like a stupid being after texazzpete ignored your warped advice, everyone cannot be a slowpoke like you who is usually more wrong than right on issues that you get involved in.

Intelligence is not for sale, you simple don't have it and you never fail to hide the silly way of reasoning you pour out here everyday.

This question keeps coming back over and over again, but except i missed something(i read every article on this thread) and this is it.
Why should some countries have nuclear arsenals and then prevent others from having same? This defies logic. Here i am well armed and i tell you o'l boy you can't arm yourself, because am armed. I will use my guns wisely but i don't trust you. I don't think you will use your weapons wisely. As i said it defies logic to tell other nations not to arm themselves whilst armed to the teeth yourself.

This is what bad people do all over the world - twist issues, make simple situations complex so that they can sell their warped positions that defies all forms of logic whatsoever.

That the world is in the present state of insecurity is based on the reasonings of people like this who will effortlessly promote injustice, hatred, kill and maim others and later turn back to complain of violence or terrorism.

The good thing though is that what goes around comes around and anyone that promoted hatred and injustice will certainly reap from the same hatred and injustice wherever they may be, its just a matter of time.

Tornadoz:

This question keeps coming back over and over again, but except i missed something(i read every article on this thread) and this is it.
Why should some countries have nuclear arsenals and then prevent others from having same? This defies logic. Here i am well armed and i tell you o'l boy you can't arm yourself, because am armed. I will use my guns wisely but i don't trust you. I don't think you will use your weapons wisely. As i said it defies logic to tell other nations not to arm themselves whilst armed to the teeth yourself.

You obviously didn't read all the articles in this thread,for one thing u are not that jobless to read all 130 of them

The basic presumption of your argument is that it is the Nuclear powers who have demanded nuclear disarmament.Wrong,the most enthusiastic supporters of nuclear disarmament,for obvious reasons,are countries that don't have nukes.

Your analogy is irelevant.If a group of people,some armed some not armed,come together and decide to eradicate arms.The process of eradication is not helped by a few who decide to secretely acquire arms.The people who are most affected by this are those who don't have arms and particularly those who don't have the means to get one .


The overwhelming majority of countries,African countries in particular,don't have the means to develop nukes.It is more in our interest to keep this planet as nuclear free as possible

@ Texazzpete

Lets face the facts, Israel is just a parasitic country that needs the US for its existence. Every problem the US has in the mid east is as a result of their association with israel.

By the way, to the guy who listed the different types of isreali Guns. These weapons are totally usless in modern day warfare unless ofcourse they intend to wipe out civilians & gain more enemies 4 themselves. The US learnt this lesson the hard way in Iraq. Technologically advanced militaries are only effective against same like the Russian, Chinese,,

Lets also not forget that the Iranians out-number the israelis 10 to 1
israel- petty populaition of 6million
Iran - over 50million

I[b]sreal is a Jewish state, i wonder y the christians think the jews love them[/b]. wat a pity.

@jagwar

For your information mordern day warfare being dificult has nothing to do with the technological inability of middle-east countries but an attempt by western army to respect the sanctity of civilian lives in the face of war. An act which differentiates them from middle east militants who are happy to use their wives and children as human shields and at the same time happy to attack civilian population. Your comment below shows you approve of such a shameful tactics.

These weapons are totally usless in modern day warfare unless ofcourse they intend to wipe out civilians & gain more enemies 4 themselves. The US learnt this lesson the hard way in Iraq.

Also note that if Iran were to engage Isreal in some war, it wont be some army struggling to differentiate militants from civilians or any sort of gorilla warfare. It will be a full fledge state vs state affair.

mckren-stop hitting us with bulshit what sanctity are westerners respeting? didn't u see all those abu ghraib pictures. didn't u see the pic of that kid who got his arms blown off during the invasion of iraq? u've been watching too many movies. the western countries u r talking about invaded iraq on false pretenses!where are the WMDs.lets not lie 2 ourselves about westerners being any more morally upright than iraqis.

Thank God people are begining to ask the right questions and are saying things the way they really are.

Blind and total support for the US and Israel regardless of their actions is wrong and only promotes hatred towards them.

Oyb

I suggest you go read my previous posts on US and Iraq war, I am not a fan of US but jagsaw brought another dimension to the whole argument. All am saying is that as much as I do not support the US and its foreign policies people should stop exploiting the rules of engaging made to protect civilian lives as a war strategy.

Putin of Russia has dared the West to cross the Rubicon. Would Bush be bold enough in responding in kind to the Russian Bear? The Cold War never ended, it just metamorphosed. And the more things change, the more they remain the same. Putin has drawn the line on Iran. US, Europe and Israel 've being forewarned that Russia will defend Iran. Iran is harmed to the teeth and willing to die for their Mahdi. Jews are not ready to die because many of them are fleeing Israel, life is too sweet. It is the dumb Christians in uniform that will be sacrificed to the Semitic gods.

I had already made a prediction that Israel, Mecca, Medina and much of Middle East 'll be destroyed. And there is no god that will shed tears. And I'll like to know which of these gods 've the biggest balls ~ Yahweh/Jehovah/Jesus or Allah/Mohamed. I hope that the Nuclear fallout plus the radiation sickness does not fall anywhere South of the Sahara.

A brilliant mind can easily see the conflict as a Superpower Proxy War.

Here is a clip on Putin warning the West, as reported in the Western media. Imagine what's is not being reported. The media is US first line of attack ~ by demonizing a military target while conditioning the dumb populace in supporting the military conquest.


Putin Hits U.S. Over Unilateral Approach

MUNICH, Feb. 10 -- Russian President Vladimir Putin, in some of his harshest criticism of the United States since he took office seven years ago, said Saturday that Washington's unilateral, militaristic approach had made the world a more dangerous place than at any time during the Cold War.

"The United States has overstepped its national borders in every way," he said in an address at an annual international security conference here. "Nobody feels secure anymore, because nobody can take safety behind the stone wall of international law."

Putin criticized the expansion of NATO, saying the alliance's placement of military forces on Russia's borders reduces "the level of mutual trust." He said the U.S. desire to place antimissile systems in Eastern Europe could further upset the international balance of power and embolden the United States in its foreign policy decisions.

The Russian president defended his country's arms sales to Iran as a way of reaching out to that Middle Eastern power, which is under pressure from the United States and Europe to curtail its nuclear program. Russia has supplied some air defense weapons to Iran because, he said, "we don't want Iran to feel cornered."

Dozens of foreign and defense ministers and other officials, including U.S. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and an American congressional delegation, attended the meeting. An Iranian nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, also was present and is scheduled to address the conference Sunday after Gates speaks.

Several U.S. politicians in attendance sharply criticized Putin's remarks, which Russia specialists said were familiar in their assertiveness but unusual in their hostility toward the United States.

The White House also reacted strongly. "We are surprised and disappointed with President Putin's comments," spokesman Gordon Johndroe said in a statement. "His accusations are wrong. We expect to continue cooperation with Russia in areas important to the international community such as counterterrorism and reducing the spread and threat of weapons of mass destruction."

Putin called on the West to resist pushing Russia to be more democratic and more respectful of human rights. "Russia is constantly being taught democracy, and the people who try to teach it don't want to learn it themselves," he said.

Putin ended his critique of the post-Cold War world by attacking the West's view of international relations. Stability and economic justice, he said, should be "not only for the chosen ones, but for everybody."

During Putin's 32-minute address, several members of the U.S. delegation frowned or looked away. Gates, a professional Sovietologist, stared down at notes he was writing. Asked for comment afterward, Gates smiled and shook his head.

After speaking, Putin took questions from the audience, elaborating on several points but backing down from none of them. Explaining his view that the world is now more dangerous than it was during the Cold War, he said that back then, "it was a fragile peace, a scary peace, but it was fairly reliable, as it turns out. Today it is less reliable."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/10/AR2007021000524.html?nav=rss_email/components

February 13, 2007

Putin Orders Russian Military Forces To Attack US Forces During Iran Invasion

Russian Military Analysts are reporting today that President Putin has issued orders to the Russian Interior Ministry to immediately dispatch Spetsnaz (Special Forces) troops to Iran to protect vital Russian assets, including the Bushehr Nuclear power plant.

These reports state that this order from President Putin to the Interior Ministry includes the phrase, against any and all hostile forces, and which analysts state is a direct threat to US and Israeli Forces currently massing for their planned attack and invasion of Iran.

According to these reports, President Putin was strongly lobbied by Saudi Arabia to create a buffer against further US aggression in the Gulf Region, and which the Saudi King in his talks with President Putin this week stated his belief that the United States after attacking Iran would then set its sites upon his oil rich nation. The fears of Saudi Arabia about an American takeover of their oil fields was further confirmed this week with the pronouncements of US Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns to end US oil purchases from Venezuela, and which would leave only the Saudi Kingdom able to make up the difference in lost oil to the Americans.

President Putin in his speech before the Munich Security Conference this past week further warned the United States against its planned military expansion, and as we can read:

It is world in which there is one master, one sovereign. And at the end of the day this is pernicious not only for all those within this system, but also for the sovereign itself because it destroys itself from within. And this certainly has nothing in common with democracy. Because, as you know, democracy is the power of the majority in light of the interests and opinions of the minority.

Incidentally, Russia is constantly being taught about democracy. But for some reason those who teach us do not want to learn themselves.

I consider that the unipolar model is not only unacceptable but also impossible in today’s world. And this is not only because if there was individual leadership in today’s world, then the military, political and economic resources would not suffice. What is even more important is that the model itself is flawed because at its basis there is and can be no moral foundations for modern civilization. Along with this, what is happening in today’s world is a tentative to introduce precisely this concept into international affairs, the concept of a unipolar world.

Unilateral and frequently illegitimate actions have not resolved any problems. Moreover, they have caused new human tragedies and created new centers of tension. Judge for yourselves: wars as well as local and regional conflicts have not diminished. Mr Teltschik mentioned this very gently. And no less people perish in these conflicts, even more are dying than before.

Today, we are witnessing an almost uncontained hyper use of military force in International relations, force that is plunging the world into an abyss of permanent conflicts. As a result, we do not have sufficient strength to find a comprehensive solution to any one of these conflicts. Finding a political settlement also becomes impossible. We are seeing a greater and greater disdain for the basic principles of international law. And independent legal norms are, as a matter of fact, coming increasingly closer to one state’s legal system.

One state and, of course, first and foremost the United States, has overstepped its national borders in every way.

Virtually unknown to the American peoples themselves are that their Military Leaders plans do not call for a World based upon democratic ideals, but are instead based upon the ancient Roman model of establishing American based protectorates around the Globe to insure the survival of the United States against both Russia and China, and who their Defense Secretary recently warned the US Congress:

Gates told the House Armed Services Committee: We need the full range of military capabilities, including ground combat forces to battle large armies and nimble special operations troops to scout out terrorist threats. We don't know what's going to develop in places like Russia and China, in North Korea, in Iran and elsewhere.

Moscow has demanded Washington’s explanation of the U.S. defense secretary’s Wednesday statement on uncertain prospects of developments in Russia, North Korea, Iran and China, a Russian foreign ministry spokesman said Monday.

http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index983.htm

It is very necessary for Putin to attempt to checkmate the over bearing US with a president that commits blunders at will without any end in sight.

Only those that have blind and sometimes very crazy support for the US will tell you that the US has not succeeded in making the world an insecure place.

It is a good thing that Russia is willing to defend Iran otherwise we will witness another invasion by the US and they will later admit mistakes based on faulty intelligence while thousands of innocent souls are sent to their early graves.

Why can't the US impeach Bush and his deputy and bring in people that are sensible?

@ 4play, you still haven't answered why what is good for the goose is not good for the gander? All through this thread your arguments and that of texaspete has been destroyed one after another by Afam and co. Why should the most heavily armed country in the world tell others not to arm themselves?

Two-thirds of Germans back Putin's U.S. criticisms

Tue Feb 13, 9:19 AM ET

BERLIN (Reuters) - Around two in three Germans support Russian President Vladimir Putin's view that the United States is on a mission to become the world's "one single master," according to a poll released on Tuesday.

A survey of 1,000 Germans showed 68 percent supported the attack made by Putin on Washington at a high-profile Munich security conference over the weekend, the poll by Emnid for N24 television showed.

Twenty-two percent of those surveyed disagreed with Putin's accusation that the United States was making the world a more dangerous place by pursuing policies aimed at making it the sole superpower.

A large majority of Germans opposed the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 and view President George W. Bush with deep suspicion, despite efforts by Chancellor Angela Merkel to bolster bilateral ties.

The Emnid poll also showed 62 percent of Germans were not concerned about stronger Russian military might.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070213/wl_nm/germany_putin_usa_poll_dc;_ylt=A0WTUdr0ydFF1oUBtQZvaA8F

Does anyone seriously believe those reports that Russia is planning to "defend" Iran

I think the whole thing can be traced to the mad man ruling America.I really appreciate the performance of the democrats in the last congress elections.so that they can balance the unbalanced man.President Clinton had none of this problem because he was wise and diplomatic in his foreign relations policy.United states must do away with this madman that nobody knew how he sneaked in.lack of charisma can be fatal.A man who said that he had no interest outside America before coming to power,how can he understand other nations,culturesetc.Even Nelson Mandela said the man is pschologically unbalanced.

Israeli Defense Minister admits war against Lebanon was not to free two captured soldiers

Global Research, January 31, 2007

The real purposes of the Israeli war against Lebanon are being disclosed, day after day, to show that the war was planned in advance to eliminate Hezbollah. After the Israeli's Interior Minister admitted that the July war did not aim to "free" the two Israeli captured soldiers, and after what the newspapers and the occupation soldiers said about trainings, aimed to start the war in addition to reports inside the General Staff that revealed ready plans to launch a war against Hezbollah, the Israeli War Minister, Amir Peretz finally admitted that the war was not to "free" the two captured soldiers but it aimed to confront the mounting threat of Hezbollah. He said that Israel would have found itself facing more difficult and more dangerous threats if it did not confront Hezbollah in that war.

Peretz affirmed, with or without his knowledge, what Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah has said before when he said that it is impossible for any state to launch a war like the July war just to "free" two captured soldiers. The War Minister said, "Is there anyone who really believes that the capture of the two soldiers in the north was the reason that led to the war? There was an accumulation of the incidents before the war which led us to be very cautious to more serious threats. If we did not confront them, we would have found ourselves, after several years, in front of harsh mounting threats and more dangerous than we have discovered." After Israel failed to achieve the goals it had put for the war and mounted questions over ending the war before freeing the two captured soldiers, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert could only say that "we are not ready to have more casualties among the Israeli soldiers in order to regain two soldiers."

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20070131&articleId=4650


The two Israeli Soldiers were captured in Lebanon

The militant group Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers during clashes Wednesday across the border in Southern Lebanon, prompting a swift reaction from Israel, which sent ground forces into its neighbor to look for them. The forces were trying to keep the soldiers' captors from moving them deeper into Lebanon, Israeli government officials said on condition of anonymity.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/israeli_solders.html


Bush 'helped Israeli attack on Lebanon'

Dan Glaister in Los Angeles
Monday August 14, 2006
The Guardian

The US government was closely involved in planning the Israeli campaign in Lebanon, even before Hizbullah seized two Israeli soldiers in a cross border raids in July. American and Israeli officials met in the spring, discussing plans on how to tackle Hizbullah, according to a report published yesterday.

The veteran investigative journalist Seymour Hersh writes in the current issue of the New Yorker magazine that Israeli government officials travelled to the US in May to share plans for attacking Hizbullah.

Quoting a US government consultant, Hersh said: "Earlier this summer , several Israeli officials visited Washington, separately, 'to get a green light for the bombing operation and to find out how much the United States would bear'."

The Israeli action, current and former government officials told Hersh, chimed with the Bush administration's desire to reduce the threat of possible Hizbullah retaliation against Israel should the US launch a military strike against Iran.

"A successful Israeli Air Force bombing campaign, could ease Israel's security concerns and also serve as a prelude to a potential American pre-emptive attack to destroy Iran's nuclear installations," sources told Hersh.

Yesterday Mr Hersh told CNN: "July was a pretext for a major offensive that had been in the works for a long time. Israel's attack was going to be a model for the attack they really want to do. They really want to go after Iran."

An unnamed Pentagon consultant told Hersh: "It was our intention to have Hizbullah diminished and now we have someone else doing it."

Officials from the state department and the Pentagon denied the report. A spokesman for the National Security Council told Hersh that "The Israeli government gave no official in Washington any reason to believe that Israel was planning to attack."

Hersh has a track record in breaking major stories. He was the first to write about the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and has written extensively about the build-up to the war in Iraq. He made his name when he uncovered the massacre at My Lai during the Vietnam war. Most recently he has written about US plans for Iran, alleging that US special forces had already been active inside the country.

[url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1844021,00.html[/url]

Nothing can be hidden for ever under the sun.

Those that stood by the facts, opposed killing of civilians and wastage of innocent lives were called names for being bold enough to call a spade a spade.

Gradually but surely information will ultimately come out in full and I wonder what those that have supported these massacres will do then.

Evil cannot triumph over good and we can never have peace until equity, fairplay and justice are guaranteed the world over.

Enough of the blind and total support based on religious and racial sentiments.

U.S. Caves In on North Korea

By Mike Whitney

02/08/07

The US has talked tough without achieving anything. Han Seung-Joo, South Korea’s former foreign minister (UK Guardian)

There’s been plenty of saber rattling and bold talk about forcing North Korea to abandon its nuclear weapons program, but after a six year standoff, Bush has decided to give in to Kim Jung Il’s demands. The Western media is characterizing the new developments as a “breakthrough”, but, in fact, Bush has retreated on every issue of consequence. It is as close to a total foreign policy failure as one can possibly imagine. Nothing has been achieved. The bottom line is this; Kim refused to budge from his original position, while Bush completely capitulated on his.

This suggests that there may have to be a serious reworking of Dick Cheney’s famous maxim that “We don’t negotiate with evil; we defeat it”. Wrong again, Dick.

The so-called “breakthrough” took place last month in a face-to-face meeting between Washington and Pyongyang in Berlin. The meeting was kept secret to conceal the administration’s willingness to meet one-on-one with their North Korean counterparts. Up until then, the chest-thumping Bush had refused to negotiate in person; choosing instead to hide behind the six party talks. Kim’s detonation of a nuclear bomb last summer triggered a sudden reversal in the administration’s approach. (Iran has probably noticed Bush’s eagerness to negotiate with nuclear-armed states.)

“According to Japan’s Asashi newspaper, the two sides signed a memorandum of understanding under which North Korea would make steps towards denuclearization at the same time as the US resumed annual shipments of 500,000 tonnes of oil, which were halted in 2002.” (UK Guardian)

If this all sounds familiar, it is because the deal is identical to the Agreed Framework that was worked out by the Clinton administration in 1994 (and which the Bush administration stubbornly refused to honor for 6 years). The only difference now is that North Korea has nuclear weapons.

The new agreement will drop US sanctions against the North and stop freezing their foreign banks accounts, a violation of international law. Kim will be expected to cease his nuclear activities at the Yongbyon reactor and allow inspectors from the IAEA, the UN nuclear watchdog agency, to resume their work.

Kim agreed to all of these conditions 10 years ago; his position has never changed. Only Bush has backed-down. US envoy, Christopher Hill, has tried to put a brave face on Washington’s capitulation saying, “I sense a real desire to have progress.” Progress?

Those who have followed the issue won’t be so easily fooled. The administration is sending up the white flag and calling it victory. They’ve back-pedaled on every point of dispute and now they’re back to square one.

Other parts of Clinton’s “Agreed Framework” are still being hammered out, but it is nearly certain that Bush will be required to meet the terms of the original deal and provide food and two lightwater reactors for electrical power. More importantly, Kim is bound to push for security guarantees which are now de rigueur for any nation negotiating with the war-mongering US. The North will demand a written assurance (Treaty) that the administration will not preemptively attack them. (The US National Security Statement claims the right to preemptively attack whoever it chooses depending on US national interests)

A signed treaty with North Korea would be a giant leap forward for nuclear nonproliferation as well as world peace.

Six years of failed policy, as well as wars that stretch across Central Asia and the Middle East, have finally pushed the blundering Bush administration to the bargaining table. The lesson is unavoidable: Bush CAN be forced to act rationally when all other options have been thoroughly exhausted. Perhaps, we can glean some small amount of hope from that.

South Korea’s former foreign minister, Han Seung-Joo, summarized the latest diplomatic developments saying:

“The US and South Korea will play this up as a big success. But they are going back to where they were before. The US has talked tough without achieving anything. They have reached a new status quo in which North Korea is a nuclear weapons state”.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17006.htm

@4play

I personally saw that summit on BBC News 24 when puttin made that damning address where he said the USA is a threat to world peace and how they are trying to control everyone else through economic and military action, who wants that? he querried. it was so funny but believe me its real.

As long as this American madman is allowed to roam free, anything can happen. Other nations won,t just sit still and allow America to continue this dictatorship. Get rid of the Bush dynasty.

@McKren

That is completely and utterly different from claiming that "Putin orders Russian Military Forces to Attack US forces during Iran invasion"

US and Russian/Soviet leaders have been attacking each other in this manner since time immemorial.Every once in a while it escalates like recently.

muyibaba:

I think the whole thing can be traced to the mad man ruling America.I really appreciate the performance of the democrats in the last congress elections.so that they can balance the unbalanced man.President Clinton had none of this problem because he was wise and diplomatic in his foreign relations policy.United states must do away with this madman that nobody knew how he sneaked in.lack of charisma can be fatal.A man who said that he had no interest outside America before coming to power,how can he understand other nations,culturesetc.Even Nelson Mandela said the man is pschologically unbalanced.

In some senses,the above post illustrates the effect of a media created meme.Here is an African,claiming that a President who cut development aid to Africa is far more preferable than one who ensured the largest increase in development aid(non-loans) since J.F.K

An African who saw his country's debt cut from $32 billion to $ 5billion claims that things were better when his country had to pay billions of dollars per annum on debt servicing.During the Clinton years,the more African nations paid there debt the more it rose.

During the Clinton years,America waged major military campaigns in Somalia,Haiti,Bosnia,Kosovo,Iraq and minor campaigns in Sudan and Afghanistan.In most of them,Clinton didn't bother even consulting the UN not to talk of failing to obtain an undisputable resolution.

When Clinton was cutting aid to Africa,he was still greeted like a hero in Africa.If u understand the stranglehold of the left-wing on Western media outlets,then you will understand why you are left with the impression that right wing leaders,like Bush are mad,while left wing leaders like Clinton are much better

Switzerland submits to Tehran a proposal for solving crisis over Iran’s nuclear program ~ over Washington’s objections

February 14, 2007, 12:30 AM (GMT+02:00)

Our intelligence sources reveal that Monday, Feb. 12, the six-point proposal secret Swiss emissaries delivered to the Iranian government ten days ago was accepted.

Its six points are revealed here for the first time:

1. Iran will be allowed to produce a predetermined quota of enriched uranium against its pledge not to exceed this limit or produce it up to weapons grade.

2. International nuclear IAEA inspections will be expanded to encompass nuclear weaponization activity.

3. In return for Tehran’s acceptance of 1. and 2., the IAEA will supply Iran with advanced nuclear technology and Russia will release nuclear fuel rods to power its Bushehr atomic reactor.

4. UN Security Council sanctions against Iran will not be stiffened.

5. The US and Europe will promise to desist from any military attack on Iran.

6. America and Europe will close down their clandestine support programs for Iran’s disaffected minorities, such as the Arabs of Khuzistan and the Kurds.

DEBKAfile’s sources report that the Swiss go-betweens were received by aides of former president Hashem Rafsanjani, whose word as one of supreme ruler Ayatollah Ali Khamenei ‘s closest advisers counts for much in the Iranian capital. Those aides, according to Swiss sources, were “more than interested” in the proposal and intimated that if Washington could be won over negotiations could go forward to solve the controversy over Iran’s nuclear program.

They also disclose that the Swiss diplomats who brought the proposal to Tehran had also involved themselves in mediation efforts in the past two years to persuade Syrian president Bashar Assad and Hamas leaders in Damascus to agree to talks with Israel. Israel rejected both initiatives.

Bush administration officials suspect that the outgoing French president Jacques Chirac is quietly sponsoring the Bern government’s initiative.

Our Iranian sources disclose Tehran attaches high hopes to the Swiss plan. The two sides are working on a “non-paper” which European Union’s foreign policy executive Javier Solana will be asked to present in Washington

http://debka.com/headline.php?hid=3830

Saudis to purchase nuclear option, advanced missiles and spy satellites off the shelf from Pakistan and Russia

February 15, 2007, 3:27 PM (GMT+02:00)

Moscow will assist in Saudi development of a civilian nuclear program and build six research satellites for the oil kingdom. DEBKAfile’s Gulf intelligence sources report this was agreed in the talks held in Riyadh earlier this week by visiting Russian president Vladimir Putin and King Abdullah. Israeli military sources report that Moscow in fact undertook to provide Saudi Arabia with half a dozen military surveillance satellites, launch them and set up ground control centers, thereby making the oil kingdom the first Middle East national with a multiple spy satellite capability for tracking the military movements of its neighbors, including Iran and Israel.

This Saudi-Russian venture has got Israel worried because it will enable Riyadh to pick up highly sensitive intelligence on its military movements and relay it to Egypt and the Palestinians.

This development confirms DEBKA-Net-Weekly’s previous disclosures that the Saudis do not intend wasting time developing their own military capabilities but are going shopping for finished products.

On Jan. 21, Saudi rulers favored visiting Pakistani president Gen. Pervez Musharraf with exception honors when he arrived at the outset of a tour of five Arab capitals. DEBKA-Net-Weekly described King Abdullah as personally welcoming the visitor and driving him in the royal convoy to a palace outside the capital where they were closeted alone for three hours. The king also conferred on the Pakistani ruler the King Abdul Aziz Award.

This ceremonial led up to an epic accord of 7 secret clauses on the terms in which Pakistan would make nuclear weapons available to, and sell, Saudi Arabia nuclear-capable missiles. DEBKA-Net-Weekly’s sources revealed that Musharraf undertook to make them available in the event of a nuclear emergency facing Saudi Arabia, the Gulf emirates, Egypt or Jordan. A mechanism was thus set up for Saudi Arabia to potentially beat Iran to the draw in acquiring a nuclear bomb, as well as controlling the security of its allies.

http://debka.com/headline.php?hid=3838

@ 4play. Are you seriously saying Bush was better than Clinton from a blackman's point of view? Why are you an apologist for a neo-con politician? Forget the gloss and scratch the surface. How come African American loathe this cretin of a man. How come he is the most unpopular US president ever amongst europeans? This Saint Bush as you would make us believe, love black people so much that he was prepared to see blacks die in New Orleans but is prepared to help Africans with loans {no strings attached). You forget Bush's new fondness for Africa is because he needs us for his global war on terror. Action speaks louder than voice. Let Bush help African Americans before turning to Africa. Charity begins at home.

Tornadoz:

@ 4play. Are you seriously saying Bush was better than Clinton from a blackman's point of view?

Yes,most Black people live in Africa.Between a President who cut aid to Africa and one who tripled it,I know who I prefer.

Tornadoz:

@ 4play. Why are you an apologist for a neo-con politician?

A neo con is a leftist who is hawkish on foreign policy.Bush is not a neo con

Tornadoz:

@ ? Forget the gloss and scratch the surface. How come African American loathe this cretin of a man.

African Americans are almost exclusively Democrats,they will vote a White Democrat rather than a black Republican.African Americans voted Ben Cardin ahead of M.Steele in the last election ensuring that Jews who are 3% of the populace have 11 Senators while Blacks who constitute 11% have only one(Obama)

Tornadoz:

How come he is the most unpopular US president ever amongst europeans?

Who cares?Do Europeans care if a particular politician is liked by Africans

Tornadoz:

This Saint Bush as you would make us believe, love black people so much that he was prepared to see blacks die in New Orleans but is prepared to help Africans with loans {no strings attached).

The mayor of New Orleans(Black) and the Governor for whom primary responsibility lies for evacuation did nothing.The Fed Govt can only help when the states request it,that is why most Americans attach greater blame to the Mayor and the Gov than the President.Most people who died in Katrina were not Black

Tornadoz:

You forget Bush's new fondness for Africa is because he needs us for his global war on terror.

Bush's policy is nothing new and predates 9/11.It is largely driven by Evangelicals who say it is a moral duty to help.

Tornadoz:

Action speaks louder than voice. Let Bush help African Americans before turning to Africa. Charity begins at home.

You are right.Action speaks louder than words and actually doing something about a continent is much better than Clinton's charm offensive that is full of rhetoric while cutting aid.

Charity begins at home for me as well.Whoever does something for my homeland(Africa) is more important than perceived failings in a foreign land

4PLAY Wrote

African Americans are almost exclusively Democrats,they will vote a White Democrat rather than a black Republican.

Why shouldn't they vote a Democrate if they believe a democrate will better serve thier interest.
I stated Europeans (actually most citizens of the world) find President Bush as the most hated American president. Your response is "who cares". The rest of us cares, many people think something should be done before this madman leads us to world war3. You said Bush tripled his aid/loans to Africa, but forgot to tell us what strings were attached. Now he needs Africa for his global war on terror, you think we should believe a republican president will best help Africa to develop? Give me a break. Jimmy Carter in the 70s made Nigeria the second or the sixth largest petroleum exporter to the US.

The mayor of New Orleans(Black) and the Governor for whom primary responsibility lies for evacuation did nothing.

But it is now universally agreed that an earlier presidential involvement could have speeded the response because he alone could have cut through all bureaucratic resistance. Little wonder then that FEMA director resigned later, after Bush told America that Michael Brown was doing a good job.?

The Fed Govt can only help when the states request it,that is why most Americans attach greater blame to the Mayor and the Gov than the President.

The most Americans you are referring to here are whites right? Definitely not black people or the residents of New Orleans. For your information the mayor was recently voted back in. Black people who make up nearly 70% of New Orleans did not blame the mayor, rather most black leaders blamed the fed govt. Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakhan, Rap artist Kanye West all blamed the fed govt. Kanye West even said Bush hates black people.

Bush's policy is nothing new and predates 9/11.It is largely driven by Evangelicals who say it is a moral duty to help.

Who wants an evangelical leader as the leader of the so-called free world, with their so-called morality. If he is driven by Evangelical ideology, any wonder the middle east is burning? I hope you are not allowing religious sentiments to becloud your judgement.

@Tornadoz,

Thanks joo, I wish you good luck as you attempt to educate this man, in all honesty I believe he lacks the ability to comprehend simple issues, he prefers jumping from one vague position to another baseless one.