Warmonger Thread

reply to post by aorAki

Question: who else, close to home, is a known terrorist sponsor? Oh that's right I'm a "hater". It's the same old tired rhetoric all the time. Are we talking past each other or will you recognise the U.S. A. as a terrorist sponsor too?

The US is not in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty….IRAN IS!

Iran is a party to the NPT but was found in non-compliance with its NPT safeguards agreement and the status of its nuclear program remains in dispute. In November 2003 IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei reported that Iran had repeatedly and over an extended period failed to meet its safeguards obligations, including by failing to declare its uranium enrichment program. After about two years of EU3-led diplomatic efforts and Iran temporarily suspending its enrichment program, the IAEA Board of Governors, acting under Article XII.C of the IAEA Statute, found in a rare non-consensus decision with 12 abstentions that these failures constituted non-compliance with the IAEA safeguards agreement. This was reported to the UN Security Council in 2006, after which the Security Council passed a resolution demanding that Iran suspend its enrichment. Instead, Iran resumed its enrichment program.

link

EDIT TO ADD: Cheers!

reply to post by coolieno99


Russia is only protecting Iran with words in an effort to protect their own oil supply. Other countries can/will supply Russia with oil. They are buying time until they find a new supply IMO.

What role is Russia playing in all this? Traditionally Moscow has been against excessively pressuring or, worse yet, using military force against Iran. Russia’s basic approach, which it deviated once from (in the case of Libya), is that interference in the internal affairs of other countries is unacceptable, especially since the pretext most often differs from the real objective (see Iraq and Libya).

Meanwhile, Russia is not an ally of Tehran, although not in favor of aggressive pressure. By now Moscow is familiar with Iran’s game. Its current show of resolve will likely be followed by a new series of peace proposals directed mainly at Russia and China. This has happened before, but Russia’s protection of Iran is not unconditional. Following news of Iran’s new uranium-enrichment plant, the Russian Foreign Ministry clearly indicated that the will of the international community must not be disregarded.

What if something radical happens? For example, a military strike? However, if we put ideological considerations and preferences aside, a military operation against Iran could benefit Russia by slowing Iran’s nuclear weapons program. Russia and other countries do not need a nuclear-armed Iran.

At the same time, a conflict would increase oil prices, which would benefit Russia, even if only in the short term. And finally, the United States would possibly become bogged down in Iran and hence distracted from the post-Soviet space.
Furthermore, the more problems Washington has in Central Eurasia, the more it will depend on Russian assistance. As with Afghanistan and the Russian transit route, Iran could strengthen Russia’s importance as a US partner.

As for general stance of Russia in the Middle East, it seems that despite activity and maneuvering Russian era as a player there is gradually coming to its end. Russian relatively vast presence in the region was based on remnants of Soviet legacy, i.e. relationships with regimes which are leaving international stage.

Their successors will not need Russia. More than that, they will see Moscow as hostile supporter of former “tyrants”. Russia is turning to more regional orientation, focusing on the neighboring space of Eurasia. It does not mean that Russia will abruptly withdraw from the Middle East, rather leave it step by step.

link

wow, this thread is still going strong spouting the "danger" of Iran , when we all know it's about keeping the dollar secure in foreign settlement. If Iran, china, Russia, India, etc start trading oil for gold, or another currency , the USA will be side staged on the international trade scene.

Instead of pushing for a war to secure the US 'position, why not use those over qualified educations to "out think" the enemy. Make the Dollar more viable since all these nations are all of a sudden looking for an alternative.

It is a little below any intellectual worth his salt to try and "send in the marines" when all you would really need is a good group of economist and financial consultants who aren't complete "@#€~¬ holes". Do your homework, dont just send the muscle. Lazy lazy lazy. just MO though, I dont have an over priced and over rated education in BS.

reply to post by casenately

wow, this thread is still going strong spouting the "danger" of Iran , when we all know it's about keeping the dollar secure in foreign settlement. If Iran, china, Russia, India, etc start trading oil for gold, or another currency , the USA will be side staged on the international trade scene.

WOW, you’re still trying to interject with clever rhetoric and no point!

Instead of pushing for a war to secure the US 'position, why not use those over qualified educations to "out think" the enemy. Make the Dollar more viable since all these nations are all of a sudden looking for an alternative.

Really?? The whole thread is about NOT pushing for war. Do you read or just type? You love some America hating!!

It is a little below any intellectual worth his salt to try and "send in the marines" when all you would really need is a good group of economist and financial consultants who aren't complete "@#€~¬ holes". Do your homework, dont just send the muscle. Lazy lazy lazy. just MO though, I dont have an over priced and over rated education in BS.

You obviously don’t have an education at all if you keep drinking the kool-aid.

Did you have a point to counter the facts that have been presented??

Originally posted by seabag


The US is not in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty….IRAN IS!

I had to star you for that. (What is wrong with me these days and sometime voice of reason? lol) as your supporting quote was there. However, as I disagree with the whole premise of nuclear weapons and see them as a crime against humanity I can only agree to a point. Also, you didn't answer my question (Re: state sponsored terrorism) and yes, it is all too common among many countries and your (potentially) great country is just one of many who indulges in state-sponsorship of terrorism (both foreign and domestic), but it is not alone and I do not hate 'the people', rather I extremely dislike the government that has developed through extreme cases of foreign policy in light of a World View.

Rather than be a warmonger, I hold true to the ideal of bringing humanity together through the commonality of our biology and while admitting it is an ideal, it is not something I wish to give up on. We CAN get over this hump of wanting dominion and oneupmanship over each other if we truly see this as a planet that we can share, rather than own.
I'm not soft, nor weak, but strong in my convictions. Yes, I'm willing to die for them. I hope it doesn't come to that, but if it does, at least I will not be counted amongst those who weakened and took a life. (By "counted I mean by future generations, not by some mythical sky faerie. There has been too much death in their names).

I'm not a hater. I'm a lover of humanity, and all life. We can overcome the cancer.

Kia kaha e hoa.

*cheers*

EDIT TO ADD: Cheers!

reply to post by seabag


dude you get angry real fast for nothing. I think I was polite enough for you to at least curb your hate for anyone that differs from your opinion. America hating......and you accuse me of rhetoric....Nice....lol

you are so biased.

My point is that this whole war with Iran is just like Iraq, all for nothing. It's about the almighty dollar, IMO.

reply to post by aorAki

I had to star you for that. (What is wrong with me these days and sometime voice of reason? lol) as your supporting quote was there.

Star for the star!

However, as I disagree with the whole premise of nuclear weapons and see them as a crime against humanity I can only agree to a point. Also, you didn't answer my question (Re: state sponsored terrorism) and yes, it is all too common among many countries and your (potentially) great country is just one of many who indulges in state-sponsorship of terrorism (both foreign and domestic), but it is not alone and I do not hate 'the people', rather I extremely dislike the government that has developed through extreme cases of foreign policy in light of a World View.

I don’t believe US is a terrorist nation. US has liberated more people than any country in the history of the world…we are not a terrorist country!

Rather than be a warmonger, I hold true to the ideal of bringing humanity together through the commonality of our biology and while admitting it is an ideal, it is not something I wish to give up on. We CAN get over this hump of wanting dominion and oneupmanship over each other if we truly see this as a planet that we can share, rather than own.

Wanting to keep Iran from nukes is not pursuing dominion over them.
You want ALL countries to get rid of nukes. Do you want to impose dominion over all countries??

I'm not soft, nor weak, but strong in my convictions. Yes, I'm willing to die for them. I hope it doesn't come to that, but if it does, at least I will not be counted amongst those who weakened and took a life.

Ditto!!

I'm not a hater. I'm a lover of humanity, and all life. We can overcome the cancer.

You’re a lover of humanity (as long as humanity aligns with your views)!

I appreciate the debate!! Cheers!

Originally posted by seabag


I appreciate the debate!! Cheers!

As do I. It's one of the ways we can reconcile.
However, I have to got to bed as I need my sleep so I can be a good 'wage slave' tomorrow...
To be continued.

Go well

reply to post by casenately

dude you get angry real fast for nothing. I think I was polite enough for you to at least curb your hate for anyone that differs from your opinion.

Well, when you say things like this (below) I get a little defensive:

wow, this thread is still going strong spouting the "danger" of Iran , when we all know it's about keeping the dollar secure in foreign settlement. If Iran, china, Russia, India, etc start trading oil for gold, or another currency , the USA will be side staged on the international trade scene.

Ya, that was polite!

you are so biased.

Sure I am…as are you!

My point is that this whole war with Iran is just like Iraq, all for nothing. It's about the almighty dollar, IMO.

There IS NO WAR WITH IRAN; I didn’t advocate one, I don’t want one, I hope things deescalate, etc. etc. That was the point of my thread. People who don’t want Iran to have nukes are not warmongers! I laid out an argument as to why Iran shouldn’t have WMD's 51 pages ago, and several follow up posts to clarify my position, and you still want to say a war with Iran is all for nothing?? There is no war!

You’ll never get my point then…so we will agree to disagree.

If you want to debate then I’m here. If you want to make smart remarks then I have nothing for you (except a star because I'm feeling generous ).

reply to post by seabag


Pacifist,Communist,Idealist,Rapist,,label me whatever you wish.but i will remain someone who is concerned about the welfare of the whole world ,and wishes to have a grandchild who instead of spreading hate and fear around the earth,is a respecting,brave and peace loving person,who does whatever he can to unify instead of dividing the souls of the world....and if that's bad then i am the worst person on the planet ,and proud of it.....And i thought we are talking man to man instead of general to general ,if you have a military mind that's alright but that also be the end of the debate for me....not that there is any thing wrong with a general......Peace....ye,a mean... War!

reply to post by shapur


Calm down, bro. I labeled you a pacifist and I a non-pacifist and I provided a reference simply to demonstrate our different positions on the subject.

It’s just a debate amongst two adults...I’m not attacking you, just your opinions (as you have mine).

To each his own!

I'm concerned too or I wouldn't have started the thread to discuss it...

reply to post by seabag

Well, when you say things like this (below) I get a little defensive:

wow, this thread is still going strong spouting the "danger" of Iran , when we all know it's about keeping the dollar secure in foreign settlement. If Iran, china, Russia, India, etc start trading oil for gold, or another currency , the USA will be side staged on the international trade scene.

There IS NO WAR WITH IRAN; I didn’t advocate one, I don’t want one, I hope things deescalate, etc. etc. That was the point of my thread. People who don’t want Iran to have nukes are not warmongers! I laid out an argument as to why Iran shouldn’t have WMB 51 pages ago, and several follow up posts to clarify my position, and you still want to say a war with Iran is all for nothing?? There is no war!

You’ll never get my point then…so we will agree to disagree.

I dont see why my opinion should have any bearing on an emotional response you may have because of it. I dont mean to offend, and I dont see how that would be taken personally, but ok.

I am aware that there is no war with Iran, but suggesting that they are a threat in a way that merits a direct military response is ludicrous. Yes, Nukes are bad, but we have not budged an inch when other countries pursued that technology, so why now with Iran.

I say that the motives for the concern are actually financially based. The threat is no less than if any other nation had them, and as of yet we have only taken such a strong stance against Iran. It seems to me that the sudden turn in favor by most countries in that region of the world to supersede the Dollar as a form of trade settlement is no coincidence.

If not we would have been more aggressive with other countries, like North Korea for example, Yet we are not sending carriers there to dissuade them from doing what they do. Why?

I did not call you a war monger, I actually agree that no country should have nukes. The solution is not military intervention or police actions against them. Hope this clarifies my stance.

Probably been posted before, but I thought this would be fitting.

I think most of us agree that War is not a good thing,and the nukes are bad,no matter which side we are on.Greed is also destructive,so is jealousy,lie and corruption........Unfortunately the world is run by the greedy, corrupted, fearful individuals who never get enough of any thing. and it is always been like this, all throughout the history.......We can not change the system over night,since it hasn't been created like so......but as long as we educate ourselves to know who is orchestrating the whole piece and why are they doing it,we have come up one step closer to discharging them...........I am not saying that the world will be necessarily a better place if they back off and leave. but i am more than willing to take my chances............and please don't tell me no one else is capable of running the world as they are ,because i am not buying that.............I have a lot of faith in good people of the world,and i am sure they can come up with some bright ideas to run the world with sanity.......the only reason they are not involved in the business is because they know the elites only let them to go so far and maintain power to a certain degree ,as it is acceptable by them terms......but things are starting to change ,we can all feel that deep inside our souls....it sure takes time ,but we will eventually get there ,one way or another.......one brick at the time will eventually build a house.houses will make towns ,and towns will make countries.,....so its in every bodies benefit if we all get together and fight the REAL enemy instead of the fake ones,,,,, don't forget they feed on ignorance, misinformation,fear, Lands, gold .oil and a couple of more things that i can not even mention!.... one could say they have a pretty healthy appetite!.......but good will ultimately overcome the evil.this is the law of the universe and it is been promised in every book....... by the way i am not a religous fanatic or a dooms day wisher ,,so please! .....cheers.

Originally posted by arbiture
reply to post by Praetorius

 

As far as I know, Israel has never wanted to, let alone openly state wipe any nation, people or ideology (unto itself) off the map, so Iran having nukes is "just for a deterrent"? Right...

As far as the nuclear question and its implications, I'll allow you to argue with Israeli military intelligence experts - who, no offense, I would assume have likely much better qualifications than yourself as well as a better grasp on the situation given proximity to the matter source here:

Zeevi Farkash, Israel’s former military intelligence chief, has said that Iran’s main drive for acquiring atomic weapons is not for use against Israel but as a deterrent against U.S. intervention, in much the same way that nuclear-armed North Korea feels secure against a U.S. attack.

As well, I thought I'd go ahead and provide a little bit more information on this that I came across, to hopefully allay your worries on this matter somewhat:

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper (HEARING TO RECEIVE TESTIMONY ON THE CURRENT AND FUTURE WORLDWIDE THREATS TO THE NATIONAL SECURITY OF THE UNITED STATES - THURSDAY, MARCH 10, 2011 - U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, Washington, DC. - source here at senate.gov):

Chairman LEVIN. Now, relative to Iran, Director Clapper, you mentioned in your statement that you do not, we do not know, talking about the Intelligence Community, if Iran will eventually decide to build nuclear weapons. I read into that that Iran has not made a decision as of this point to restart its nuclear weapons program. Is that correct?
Mr. CLAPPER. Yes, sir. I would like, though, to defer a more fulsome response to a closed session.
Chairman LEVIN. Okay. But, what is level of confidence that you have that as of this time they have not decided to restart that program? Is that a high level of confidence?
Mr. CLAPPER. Yes, it is.

Former IAEA director Mohamed ElBaradei (one source here at The New Yorker:

“During my time at the agency,” ElBaradei told me in an earlier interview, “we haven’t seen a shred of evidence that Iran has been weaponizing, in terms of building nuclear-weapons facilities and using enriched materials.” There is evidence that Iranian scientists have studied the issues involved in building and delivering a bomb, he added, “but the American N.I.E. reported that it stopped even those studies in 2003.”

A former UK Ambassador to Iran, Sir Richard Dalton, says in his article here pretty much the same things I've been reporting elsewhere - our policies are somewhat to blame, Iran has previously been more helpful on the matter than we've given them credit for, and there is no evidence Iran's building the bomb:

So is Iran attempting to build a nuclear weapon? For at least three years, the US intelligence community has discounted this hypothesis. The US director of national intelligence, James Clapper, testified last February to Congress: "We continue to assess [whether] Iran is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons … We do not know, however, if Iran will eventually decide to build nuclear weapons."

Most experts, even in Israel, view Iran as striving to become a "threshold country", technically able to produce a nuclear weapon but abstaining from doing so for now. Again, nothing in international law forbids this ambition. Several other countries are close to, or have already reached, such a threshold, with a commitment not to acquire nuclear weapons. Nobody seems to bother them.

We often hear that Iran's refusal to negotiate seriously left our countries no other choice but to drag it in 2006 to the security council. Here too, things are not quite that clear. In 2005 Iran was ready to discuss an upper limit for the number of its centrifuges and to maintain its rate of enrichment far below the high levels necessary for weapons. Tehran also expressed its readiness to allow intrusive inspections, even in non-declared sites. But at that time Europe and the US wanted to compel Iran to ditch its enrichment programme entirely.

As far as the claim of Iran's statement, that is subject to much debate anyway, and there's the matter of interpretation - we can address that later as needed. Take care.

reply to post by Praetorius


I never, well almost never, take umbrage with anyone with another opinion, as civil debate is why we should exchange thoughts here and elsewhere. I do appreciate your obvious decency, and sig; Take Care. I just think your, well wrong, but hardly in-total. With honest respect please take into account, just a few things. As for the source you quote, aside from logical and self serving rhetoric AND consider that anyone who thinks that processing u235/238 to 20% purity, or make plutonium w/a lithium "booster-enhancer" thinks its for a "peaceful reactor", would not allow inspectors in which could in most cases clear it all up in most w/in weeks.

Iran has buried VERY deeply several known reactor and "other" nuclear sites that can be used to create make actionable quickly just about anything. Though we have different remote sensor technology that can look sub-surface, and other interesting things (I will provide several reputable OS (open source) sites that anyone can look at free, or for more interesting stuff a modest fee), as web sites at the end of this post. As for what Iran has been doing about at least 15 years. Then again I get a lot from other sources that DO involve basic news, multiple sources as one is never good enough, like real good pastry, x-check and reference "other news/sources/published papers-stuff" and all important private contacts, the kind you only discuss in person.

I know this was not your main point at all, but may help establish my bona-fides, or perhaps not. Everything that follows is for the most part OS, but not usually common knowledge, also referred to as "SENSITIVE but UNCLASSIFIED" Did I first double check about mentioning some of this not in the "NYT", for one example*? Oh yeah. I am careful in this about anything that MAY even remotely affect National Security, SCI-Corporate information since I basically "do company stuff" (No, not THE COMPANY...) I worry about it because lets say I'm pathological. (What no one even noticed? Right...) I know what can happen when some people get off showing how smart/connected they are because people have died as a result, or we f***** ourselves usually&often may have cost 1-to-X billion $$$ because of mouth moving, brain on serious, heavy duty narcotics... Dumb. Actually its criminally stupid. Enough pre-amble...

As for Iran building nukes to prevent the US from attacking allow me to provide a few scenarios: Q- When would it be likely for the US to pre-empt? A- only if an attack was considered imminent and w/extreme (OS, phrase for highest level of) confidence. How do we determine same? Don't even ask, plus actionable protocols, what and how we do stuff, usually is modified but not always by Executive Order, as happened after 9/11 and change more often then I change my shorts. Q; What are reasons for a response that is what is called today "large caliber", and that means by the way NON-NUCLEAR response. If we we're struck by nukes the SIOP drills have looked at almost any foreseeable Presidential or his/her "available" survivor to such an attack. I couldn't tell you if I knew, anyway I'm not high enough the food chain. I DO know we change/update plans all the time, I just know we have LOTS OF options, based on ? Kind of a no brainer but certainly a conventional attack on say a ship if a US military (our allies, and others and have their own protocols) to this , though the US takes its obligation as "friend" much more seriously then many would imagine. This is an issue I differ w/Ron Paul on

As said many times I can not give you a direct link (so type an address, no biggie), and don't post transmit or do the same w/video. No doubt you've heard of stegenagraphy, embedding information in many ways in a picture? Its possible to by-pass all open or sleeper counter espionage technology/etc programs by clicking on the image and imbedding "not for use at home" malware in the image processing or screen picture-imaging materials and actual flat screen image actuation&image enhancers, old cathode-ray tube type screens ( So its undetectable by almost all conventional screens as new oregano-polymers, that technology I have both worked on and designed some rather exotic and very new basic technology as some of the technology is difficult to date just manufacture w/todays non-adaptive industrial materials and infrastructure, way to $$$ heavy. Only mentioned here to make people aware of new and for intent currently unknown in common cyber-war, hacking,etc. I know I've said it before but w/the ungodly cash available to some companies and governments of course it can be a visual trojan (not THAT but) whats often called a SEVIA, Selective, (sometimes called specific) Embedded Visual Image (or in some neighborhoods Image (most use intelligence, since we have the word "visual" Attack. Running out of space so will continue next post.

keeping busy, being peaceful, this lot....eh?

Well, after all, they are already convicted, might as well go on and commit the crime... eh?






www.bbc.co.uk...


www.msnbc.msn.com...

I hate blocks of text that have no real point. I read that whole thing and dont even see the point he was trying to make.

I am not trying to be rude, but what are you saying?

You know something, but can't say it, yet know something introspectively, yet cant affirm it because of ?

so you really think Iran wants to start Armageddon, after carefully building its economy for years. They all of a sudden want to end the world because they were just pretending to try and get themselves an organized and have a slightly westernized country?

They were just joshing us into a false sense of security so they could end the world in the name of their hate of Jews or the USA. Really they believe the Israeli and US governments will collapse on their own. They dont really care what we think of them like the rest of the world doesn't.

Maybe the people who want this war are the ones to gain the most by it financially. I am sorry if you have bought into the fear and dread that they sold, interestingly not about North Korea or other Nuclear powers.

There is no such thing as a need for war unless you are being attacked. Anything else is just a ploy to control the markets.

double post, Ill just add more. lol

Iran is just like any other nation that has nukes. Unless you are saying that any nation that has them is evil and bent on domination or genocide.

reply to post by shapur


Please note: This is a continuation of my response to "Praetorius"...

I guess my point is what you staid about the Israeli source you quote sounds understandably but never-the-less self serving. Why not, nations always are, my country does and any nation that says otherwise is lying, on drugs, or in need of them. OK concerning other issues: Q; Assume Israel is attacked by CONVENTIONAL forces of Iran, how would they respond? A; How the hell do I know? But IMO we would have the biggest baddest "conventional" war since WW-2. The tragic irony of the middle east and the whole Israel/Palestinian problem is it's perhaps doubtful that the nation state of Israel would even exist today, certainly not likely as it is, though thats more IMO, if Hitler had not hated the Jews to the extent of trying to "wipe them off the face of the Earth". This statement ring any bells out there?

The Jews found out that w/out the trappings of a nation state; a military, some unified way as w/a government capable of doing business w/the diplomatic world-community, one is screwed. In effect THATS the MAIN problem that there is w/out a unified Palestine now. You have a so-called government, a bunch of guys running around as each vies to be "Grand Pubar". And having many who in their college days so to speak if not much more recently did their dissertation on "blowing up school busses, and lobbing mortar shells into houses 101", you just might be able to have a government the world starting w/Israel takes seriously. It makes me very angry seeing EACH side waste the precious opportunity they have in getting their s*** together.

Israel has a serious labor shortage Palestinians are both smart and hard working. But also live in what can only be called purgatory of frustration You have constant checkpoints, lack of resources and jobs, etc. You think the TSA is intrusive? They are, but makes the above look like a love-in. Do I have a problem w/ Israel taking more and more land that was ceded to the Palestinian after the 1967 war, damn right I do. Do I think any people when pissed off enough will make what they do given the idiots, opportunists and lest face it thugs the Palestinians have to "represent" them by comparison between a night at Studio 54 in the 1970's look like the Bataan death march? What do YOU think. Israel took the Golan because it was lovely high ground for anyone to lob mortars at them.

On the other hand don't forget how close Israel came to using nukes to save its life as a nation in the 1973 war. It was a "passing comment" in the media maybe 20+ or so years ago that Israel had A-4 Skyhawks sitting w/pilots on the runway w/tactical nukes attached to under belly mounts. Not to forget Nixon was UTTERLY consumed by Watergate, and both us and the USSR had our forces on if not close to full alert, w/Russian paratroopers + reinforcements in the air before someone (I personally think it was General Alexander "I'm in charge here" Haig, but can't prove it, lets say I trust my instincts) who I think played a major role in getting at least one of two VERY DRUNK people then, Nixon and Brezhnev (NO s*** baby) to each bilaterally back down from would have been the mother of all s*** storms.

It gets better. At the height of Watergate this also reported on TV by no less then Haig himself that he was so worried about Nixon's state of mind that he contacted Nixon's own DR. (a serious violation of protocol but who cares) and Haig asked the Dr. if Nixon had any "pills or stuff he might take", being already a walking Jack Daniels ad that he had access to that could "kill the President if he took a lot" in one desperate attempt to just I think the term was "check out". Maybe not an absolute quote but I remember watching that. My jaw hit the floor so hard at the time I damn near could have used an air bag on my face. One thing many don't get about nukes&nations (no its not a game show) who say what right DO YOU have to say someone can't have nukes. For now lets forget the crap about "lets all share". Since the early cold war w/painful trial each nation in said "club" developed this bizarre kind of "Kabuki dance" where there evolved signals that said "back off, your making me nervous". This has taken decades and is now rather effective. North Korea and Iran have not yet learned this "dance". W/out the etiquette, nations can do very stupid things like N.Korea firing a missile right over Japan, "oh just testing"In the end who cares if Iran gets nukes to protect it US, Israel or Sweden. Because each does not "get it" that is an historic way for wars to start. Its happened before an now our dreadful. China keeps N.K. from not being as bad as they could. And the leash on Iran is Russia because Iran's missies can reach Russia. Now you know why President so visibly and so fast. Sorry, web sites and references next post.