AustonT wrote:I did not know that. I guess I assumed that to travel to certain countries (I was specifically thinking N.Korea) you'd have to renounce your citizenship.

AustonT wrote:I did not know that. I guess I assumed that to travel to certain countries (I was specifically thinking N.Korea) you'd have to renounce your citizenship.

CT GAMER wrote:

So you want to nuke the Vatican?

This is the smartest idea yet in this thread.

BTW, I was once given a dirty look by one of "those people" so I'm allowed to hate them all...

ShumaGorath wrote:

AustonT wrote:Frazzled:
There's nothing keeping you from flying out and going to live in some hut in Afghasnistan if that western world thing is such a bummer for you. I hear North Korea is beautiful this time of year. You should go.
Shuma: There are no outbound US flights to North Korea or Iran.
Frazzled: Go to China. Pay off NK embassy official. Cross over. Its time honored practice.
http://www.snagfilms.com/films/title/vice_guide_to_north_korea_episode_1_of_3


DECISION POINT: If you were joking you could have
A. Said nothing
B. Shuma: I was joking man NBD.

You chose C:
Shuma: I'm continuing to make a point 5 minutes on google would have kept me from attempting to make.

I have a very observable trend in my posts. It's either long winded gak, short snippy one sentence jokes, or I just make fun of people. One sentence is pretty short. I don't think I was making fun of frazzled either. So which could it be? I mean, it wouldn't be bizarre if I responded to frazzled joking suggestion that the man fly to north korea with another joke. Even a deadpan one. It's pretty common that I apologize for mispeaking on this forum. I do it about once a week. I can eat the pie off my face and smile, Its a learning experience. This however is not one such situation.

Mr. Burning wrote:

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty, and justice for all.

Religion plays big part in Ameriacn politics and life, overtly or not.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

DIDM wrote:the whole middle east will soon be occupied by American forces upholding a UN mandate.


all your oil are belong to us




I for one say grow hemp, the future will be all hemp

fixed.

The U.N. atomic agency said for the first time Tuesday that Iran is suspected of conducting secret experiments whose sole purpose is the development of nuclear arms, an assessment that draws on 1,000 pages of intelligence and nearly a decade of research.

The report by the International Atomic Energy Agency is its most unequivocal yet suggesting that Iran is using the cover of a peaceful nuclear program to produce atomic weaponry. Based on years of trying to probe Tehran's secretive activities, its release will stoke debate on whether it's time to jettison failed diplomatic efforts to end Iran's nuclear defiance and replace them with force.

The 13-page annex to the IAEA's regularly scheduled report on Iran included evidence that suggests the Islamic republic is working on the clandestine procurement of equipment and designs to make nuclear arms.

"While some of the activities identified in the annex have civilian as well as military applications, others are specific to nuclear weapons," the report said.

Among these were indications that Iran has conducted high explosives testing and detonator development to set off a nuclear charge, as well as computer modeling of a core of a nuclear warhead. The report also cited preparatory work for a nuclear weapons test, and development of a nuclear payload for Iran's Shahab 3 intermediate range missile — a weapon that can reach Israel.

In Washington, officials said the report confirms U.S. suspicions about the military nature of Iran's program, and the Obama administration was readying a range of sanctions and other measures against Iran should the Islamic republic fail to answer questions raised about its nuclear ambitions.

Israeli government spokesman Mark Regev said there was a government directive not to comment until Israel has studied the findings in depth.

But before the report's release, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak warned of a possible Israeli military strike against Iran's nuclear program.

"We continue to recommend to our friends in the world and to ourselves, not to take any option off the table," he told Israel radio.

That phrase is often used by Israeli politicians to mean a military assault. Israeli leaders have engaged in increased saber rattling recently, suggesting that an attack was likely a more effective way to stop Iran's nuclear program than continued diplomacy.

Iran is under U.N. sanctions for refusing to stop uranium enrichment — which can produce both nuclear fuel and fissile warhead material — and other suspected activities that the international community fears could be used to make atomic arms. But Iran dismisses such allegations and says its activities are meant to be used only for energy or research.

Iran's official IRNA news agency dismissed the U.N. findings, accusing IAEA chief Yukiya Amano of including "worthless comments and pictures provided by the intelligence services." In Vienna, Ali Asghar Soltanieh, Iran's chief IAEA delegate, called the report "unbalanced, unprofessional and prepared with political motivation and political pressure by the United States."

In Moscow, Russia's Foreign Ministry said it would not comment until it had time to study the report carefully.

Some of the information was new — including evidence of a large metal chamber at a military site for nuclear-related explosives testing. Iran contemptuously dismissed that, saying they were merely metal toilet stalls.

The bulk of the information, however, was a compilation of alleged findings that have already been partially revealed by the agency. It was meant to connect the dots between procurement, draftboard planning and testing, all supervised by the military under the guise of civilian organizations.

But a senior diplomat familiar with the report said its significance lay in the comprehensive way it laid out evidence indicating that Iran has engaged in all aspects of testing needed to develop a nuclear weapon. Also significant was the agency's decision to share most of what it knows or suspects about Iran's secret work with the 35-nation IAEA board and the U.N. Security Council after being stonewalled by Tehran in its attempts to probe such allegations.

It also underlined concerns that Iran had apparently continued work on developing a nuclear warhead and ways to trigger it past 2003 — the year that a U.S. intelligence assessment in 2007 said such activities stopped. Instead, the agency said, some of this work continued at least until 2010, although in a less concentrated way.

Unusually strong language reflected such worries, with the report noting that "some of the activities undertaken after 2003 would be highly relevant to a nuclear weapons program."

"I think (the IAEA) want to lay out their case and say, 'Look, we've gone as far as we can, here's our best argument,'" said David Albright whose Institute for Science and International Security in Washington tracks suspected nuclear proliferators.

The next step, he said, was up to the IAEA's decision-making board, which referred Iran to the U.N. Security Council in 2006 — and can do so again, strengthening the chances of new U.N. sanctions.

The report was not being viewed as a game-changer in Washington. It doesn't reveal intelligence unknown to the United States — which contributed to much of the IAEA's knowledge about Iran's nuclear work — and U.S. officials said it is unlikely to persuade reluctant powers such as China and Russia to support tougher sanctions on the Iranian government.

But the officials, who asked for anonymity because their information is privileged, said the report offered significant support for some long-held U.S. suspicions and lends international credence to claims that Tehran isn't solely interested in developing atomic energy for peaceful purposes.

A senior administration official said the finding that Iran undertook computer modeling of the core of a nuclear bomb was "of particular concern."

"There is no application of such studies to anything other than a nuclear bomb," the official said.

The official also pointed to the report's assessment that Iran is developing fast-acting detonators that can be used in a nuclear weapon, and its efforts to procure key nuclear weapons ingredients, such as high-speed electronic switches, spark gaps, high-speed cameras, neutron sources and radiation detection and measuring equipment.

The Obama administration will use the report as leverage in making its case to other countries that sanctions against Iran should be expanded and tightened, and that the enforcement of current sanctions be toughened, the officials said.

However, it's not going to sway the U.S. administration from its plan to rely on sanctions and diplomatic pressure, instead of military threats, to deter Iranian ambitions, they said.

The U.N. Security Council has passed four sets of damaging sanctions on Iran, but veto-wielding members China and Russia oppose further measures and are unlikely to change their minds despite the report's findings.

halonachos wrote:I laugh at the people who say that the US went to Iraq for oil. Especially when it comes down to the fact that the majority of oil shares in Iraq have been awarded to European or Asian firms. Exxon appears to be the only US firm with some shares to an Iraqi oil field. Shell owns a lot, but they operate out of the Netherlands, BP owns a lot and again that's British Petroleum, then there's China's state run oil company that owns a lot. The US has gotten squat diddly oil wise, but the Chinese, British, and other Europeans sure have. uote]

First up nations don't really own oil companies any more. They're called multi-national for a reason. They might be listed on one stock exchange, but ownership is very diverse, with people of all manner of nationalities holding a share in the company.

Second up, the primary motivation in nations involving themselves in wars over oil isn't to secure future profits for oil companies, but to control the oil price itself. That is, while most of the US oil is domestic, or comes from Venezuala and Canada, the production of oil in the Middle East is a primary driver in the price of oil in the US, which in turn is an important element in the level of economic growth.

All that said, I agree that Iraq wasn't about oil. It was certainly a factor, but the real driver was the idea that the US could reform the whole region by toppling Saddam in a quick war and install a new and prosperous democracy, and so lead to the same in other countries in the region.

sebster wrote:
Second up, the primary motivation in nations involving themselves in wars over oil isn't to secure future profits for oil companies, but to control the oil price itself. That is, while most of the US oil is domestic, or comes from Venezuala and Canada, the production of oil in the Middle East is a primary driver in the price of oil in the US, which in turn is an important element in the level of economic growth.

sebster wrote:
All that said, I agree that Iraq wasn't about oil. It was certainly a factor, but the real driver was the idea that the US could reform the whole region by toppling Saddam in a quick war and install a new and prosperous democracy, and so lead to the same in other countries in the region.