"Asked who the "new crazies" were he replied: "Those who have extreme views and say the only solution is to impose your will by force."

Dr ElBaradei said he was not referring to President George Bush..." No, he was referring to Ghandi.

"Still "crazy", after all these years..."

Since he introduced the concept, he should have named the crazy as BUSH and his administration. He could have included Blair too and Howard to complete the rest of the immediate gang of war criminals.

Ghandi. Right.

Let's name names here, viz-a-vis the crazies:

Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Condi Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Frederick Kagan, Bill Kristol.

Did I leave anyone out? Oh, Bush, right.

No, not Gandhi.

Good God, there are actually way too many people that think we who want Bush and gang impeached are the ones that are off kilter.

Everyone knows to whom El Baradei is referring, but if he is explicit he will likely lose his position and thereby his platform from which to try to have an influence on world opinion. What is disturbing is that with a new government in France there seems to be one more voice backing the US at the UN. Iran is not a threat to world peace. The US is.

"...but his remarks are likely to be interpreted as a swipe at those neo-conservatives in the US who still favor military action."

As opposed to being interpreted as a swipe at the Drake University men's 4x400 relay team.

Kevorkian was just released from prison. Yipppeeee!!!!!! Now here's a real opportunity for George Bush to appoint someone for Chief of Staff who will make difference in his Administration.

SRD
www.bccmeteorites.com

Let's face it! We all know who he was talking about when he referred to the 'new crazies'! It fits Bush and Company to a tee! I think the man is mentality unbalanced. I really think he is crazy enough to start another war with Iran. That's the neo-con's answer to everything, bomb them into the stone age! He certainly has Iraq! I think it will be time for the American people to take things into their own hands if he does though. So, get ready for another go around!

If very recent history is a guide to enlighten us as to what will happen it will go like this: More and more news reports will come into your homes with increased concern as to the nuclear capabilities and intentions of Iran. There will be an incident that will have the U.S. public (I reframe from the word "American" as there are a lot of other countries in the Americas) as a whole pleading for the military to save them from a "mushroom cloud" over their city. There will be warnings form the U.S. about compliances to things that Iran is not guilty and therefore can not comply. Condi Rice will deliver a speech to the U.N. as the war planes get fueled to go into Iran. The U.S. citizenry will watch with relief as the 10:00 oclock news shows the smart bombs pinpoint the suspected but not verified targets. The fact that it was a hospital or apartment building will never be on Fox and buried on page 6 of most newspapers. NPR will give a little "milktoast" mention of it but carefully have that followed by some, in the name of "equal time", right-wing fool descediting the idea of the U.S. being so callouse.

The fascist's reaction to this Arab's statement is palpable.

I once asked a Japanese diplomat, "How come you're friends and an ally of America now when they nuked you, even when Japan had already surrendered? They nuked you just to show the Russians who the boss was." He replied, "We killed 50,000 of them too."

To this day I do not understand his logic. If a country uses nuclear weapons to mass murder your innocent countrymen and destroy your nation, you can never, ever be friends with anyone from that country. How can you forget their murderous act for as long as you live and as long as there is memory? That is probably how a righteous human being should think, and that's definitely how an Iranian thinks. I know it, because I lived there and had quite a few Iranian friends.

It is immoral and murderous enough to use conventional weapons to destroy a people's infrastructures and daily life as America has done in Iraq; it is unthinkable to do it with nuclear weapons, the disastrous effects of which are likely to linger for decades. It is not surprising that Iraqis volunteer as suicide bombers to kill Americans. When one decides to give his life, that's an individual's ultimate sacrifice in any culture, and it is commendable. Call him a terrorist or what you may but that is for the the pot calling the kettle black. If the United States uses nuclear weapons on Iran, aside from world condemnations, one thing is sure to emerge: No American will ever be able to safely walk this world, even inside the USA. Revengeful individuals will kill Americans, innocent or not, no matter where they find them because in them they see the face of evil. One man could get his hands on an AK-47 and cut down scores of people in a mall before he is killed. Even a one-to-one kill ratio on a daily basis would make Americans feel unsafe and vulnerable anywhere in the world. They will be easy targets for the revengeful.

Already in the Middle East when people ask Americans where they are from, they say Holland, New Zealand, and the like. They are ashamed or perhaps scared to say they're Americans. It should not be so. It was not like this in the not so distant a past when America was respected, and Americans were proud to say they were Americans. Bush, The-Liar-in-Chief, the Decider without any brain to decide, as well as the overwhelming members of the US Congress who are in the pockets of Israeli AIPAC should think long and hard before attacking Iran for oil, corporate interests, and the control of the Middle East. There will be no winner in the US war with Iran, and the US will certainly come off worse.

people of the US should be worried cause Bush and his "crazies" have given the pentagon exactly what they wanted. that's why they supported bush as president and made cheney his vice president, seeing he owns Haliburtan and getting billions of dollars for doing nothing but billing the american taxpayers for work and machinery that was never done or never shipped. that is called false billing. when the pentagon lost more than half of their budget after the cold war ended, they needed someone to devise another war that would last 100 yrs. and with an idiot as president listened to the thugs around him. now they have more money than ever, giving the generals and their pals our tax money, on top of supplements to fight the two wars were already in. i predict we will bomb and force Iran into a war which of course we can't win, but that won't stop the money flowing into the pockets of the crooked pentagon's joint chiefs of staff and their subbordinants. why do you think that the GAO states every year that one quarter of the funds given to the pentagon is unaccounted for. and the politicians won't do a thing about it. cause the pentagon people tell those politicians who won't play ball to either take their money for their re-election or be killed. that's the business the military does. is kill people, and mostly innocent women and children are the ones being killed. so the idiot G.W.Bush gave the pentagon exactly what they want. i'd bet if a journalist like bob woodward were to investigate just the top one hundred generals, he would find that they are all worth 100 million or more. and then when they retire, they are offered jobs by General Dynamics and the other defense contractors top jobs that reep them millions more. think about it. what does the pentagon spend 600 billion on and then add on another 100 billion every three months to fight two wars that they can't win. Bush and Cheney i'm sure are getting a cut of the action, like the 9 billion allocated for the rebuilding of iraq which shows the contractors aren't even doing the work, just taking the money and making excuses. just like bush and his crooked cronies. the american people better wake up and smell the coffee or we're all gonna be overtaken by the military to stop the rioting when 100 million americans are out of work. when congress overrides the "posse coma tatis" law, we are doomed to a military invasion like McCarther did for Hoover and killed with cannon and machine gun fire ex-soldiers that fought in the Spansish-American war protesting for their pensions that they had never received. in ten or fifteen yrs. or maybe even earlier, this may happen again, especially the way the Patriot act is worded. people of america, wake up now or it's gonna be too late and we'll soon have a military dictarship as Pakistan has. i would like just one or two of our top journalists investigate the money trail, like they did with Nixon and see how many generals are on the take, skimming money from defense contracters, adding ficticious names on their rosters and collect their paychecks and then send it to Switzerland into their private bank accounts. but i'm afraid, which i'm sure the journalists realize will be their downfall, either by a suspicious accident or a random killing. beware americans, the time is near. rise up now and take to the streets and protest against this crooked administration and the pentagon.

They have escalated everything in the Persian Gulf and are just waiting for some Iranian wayward commander to do something stupid then they will have the bona fidas (they think) to attack with everythign we have. The US has out of control leaders/manipulators.

Of course ElBaradei, may not have been referring to GWB could just as easily be referring to the warmongers that are currently in front for the Democratic nomination in '08. We don't have to look to hard to find Hillary, or Obama's saber rattling.

On 1/18/06 at Princeton Hawkery Clinton said:

"I believe that we lost critical time in dealing with Iran because the White House chose to downplay the threats and to outsource the negotiations. I don't believe you face threats like Iran or North Korea by outsourcing it to others and standing on the sidelines. But let's be clear about the threat we face now: A nuclear Iran is a danger to Israel, to its neighbors and beyond. The regime's pro-terrorist, anti-American and anti-Israel rhetoric only underscores the urgency of the threat it poses. U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal. We cannot and should not – must not – permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons. In order to prevent that from occurring, we must have more support vigorously and publicly expressed by China and Russia, and we must move as quickly as feasible for sanctions in the United Nations. And we cannot take any option off the table in sending a clear message to the current leadership of Iran – that they will not be permitted to acquire nuclear weapons."

Or you can drop the headline below into google and read a chicago tribune report about Obama's "crazy" and certainly threatening remarks during his 2004 senate campaign.

"Obama would consider missile strikes on Iran"

Or you can find plenty to read about Pelosi (after expressing unwavering support for Israeli apartheid in a speech to AIPAC) and house leaders stripping from the latest Iraq occupation supplemental language which would have prohibited a strike on Iran by Bush.

The fact is that the "crazies" constitute the leadership in both corporate parties.

At the top of my to do list is: de-register from the Democratic party. It's a small step to ensuring a viable planet for current and future generations.

They forgot the crazies outside our borders: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=797798

The crazy is the elected president of Iran whose stated goal is to wipe Isreal off the map.

The crazies are the ones who don't want to bomb . . .

Critics of Iran's program to enrich uranium don't like people to know what is in the actual NPT treaty that establishes the rules. Such critics (like Bush) forbid Iran from the presumption that it is a sovereign nation. The two key treaty articles are below with a link to the treaty below that.

Of note:

Iran has an "inalienable right" to enrich uranium under IAEA supervision. See Article IV.

The US is in obvious violation of Article VI by planning new generations of nuclear weapons. (See the QDR of 2006 -- http://www.defenselink.mil/qdr/report/Report20060203.pdf)

Here are the two relevant treaty articles.

ARTICLE IV
1. Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with Articles I and II of this Treaty.

2. All the Parties to the Treaty undertake to facilitate, and have the right to participate in the fullest possible exchange of equipment, materials and scientific and technological information for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Parties to the Treaty in a position to do so shall also cooperate in contributing alone or together with other States or international organizations to the further development of the applications of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, especially in the territories of non-nuclear-weapon States Party to the Treaty, with due consideration for the needs of the developing areas of the world.

ARTICLE VI
Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective
international control.

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Treaties/npt.html

Who is in compliance? (Iran) Who is in violation? (The United States) This should be the headline of a feature article in Duh! magazine.

Oh yeah. US allies Israel, Pakistan and India have nuclear arsenals and have not even signed the NPT treaty, three of four nations on Earth who haven't.

Visualize peace.

To Saila,

"If a country uses nuclear weapons to mass murder your innocent countrymen and destroy your nation, you can never, ever be friends with anyone from that country."

You can never be friends with any of the many millions of people who had nothing whatsoever to do with the decision, and would have refused to go along with it if given the chance? This is exactly the sort of reasoning that allows us to kill innocent civilians in the first place. Dehumanising and deindividualising the citizens of enemy nations is as old as the hills, and always wrong.

We shouldn't jump to the unwarranted conclusion that El Baradei was referring to Dick Cheney when he used the term "new crazies." 'Cause if he were referring to Cheney he should have used a modifier like "on-going" or "continual" or "repetitive" to describe Cheney's craziness.