The Iran Factor

--

next on the bush regime agenda.??? Who knows what lurks in the warloving minds of the bush cabal these days..

(kinda too bad that bush relishes his self appointed role as "war prez" so much. Peace is simply not part of their mentality. /equation.

Well Iran will not be a cake walk like Iraq and "W" would be very foolish to go into Iran. But "W" is not really a bright bulb is he?

It would appear to be in Iran's interest to pour as much support into the Iraqi resistance as they can muster. Face the American terror on foreign soil. Kind of what the Yanks are claiming to do in Iraq.

you have a good point..

--

interesting dynamics taking place.. (worthwhile read IMHO)

your link doesn't seem to be working???

sorry about that.....and I deleted the mail item-that had the article from the inbox ..

indeed.......but it won't be following the same military type aggressive invasion modality of Iraq. Different subversive tactics are being considered. Seems the idea is to destabilize the country in other ways and then blame said country (Iran) for this and gradually erode the gov't in Iran. IF this occurs , it could be even more deadly than what is taking place now. The US deviousness (pathology) is limitless.

( bizarre as it would be: Iran has a valid reason to invade the US and do a regime change.......as the US is a clear and present danger to Iran........and Iran does not have to LIE about it either. Taling it a step further , if each nation that is threated by the USG now joined forces with each other ......well, you get the drift)

btw: your graphic portrays the current US(G) image accurately. Don't it??

It sure does OB It wouldn't be the first time the US destabilized Iran they used terrorism there before to take out the leaders and put in the Sha ( spelling)

--

Iran heeds warning. To keep plant shutdown.

hmm. (not that bush needs much of an excuse to invade or destabilize......but this might keep the USG wolf at bay...for a while)

--


pre-empting Bush/Cheney war dynamo.

US (G) "says":

[/quote]Some Bombs Used in Iraq Are Made in Iran, U.S. Says

Sign In to E-Mail This
Printer-Friendly
Single-Page
Reprints
By ERIC SCHMITT
Published: August 6, 2005
WASHINGTON, Aug. 5 - Many of the new, more sophisticated roadside bombs used to attack American and government forces in Iraq have been designed in Iran and shipped in from there, United States military and intelligence officials said Friday, raising the prospect of increased foreign help for Iraqi insurgents.

Skip to next paragraph



Forum: The Transition in Iraq
American commanders say the deadlier bombs could become more common as insurgent bomb makers learn the techniques to make the weapons themselves in Iraq.

But just as troubling is that the spread of the new weapons seems to suggest a new and unusual area of cooperation between Iranian Shiites and Iraqi Sunnis to drive American forces out - a possibility that the commanders said they could make little sense of given the increasing violence between the sects in Iraq.

Unlike the improvised explosive devices devised from Iraq's vast stockpiles of missiles, artillery shells and other arms, the new weapons are specially designed to destroy armored vehicles, military bomb experts say. The bombs feature shaped charges, which penetrate armor by focusing explosive power in a single direction and by firing a metal projectile embedded in the device into the target at high speed. The design is crude but effective if the vehicle's armor plating is struck at the correct angle, the experts said.

Since they first began appearing about two months ago, some of these devices have been seized, including one large shipment that was captured last week in northeast Iraq coming from Iran. But one senior military officer said "tens" of the devices had been smuggled in and used against allied forces, killing or wounding several Americans throughout Iraq in the past several weeks.

"These are among the most sophisticated and most lethal devices we've seen," said the senior officer, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the delicate intelligence reports describing the bombs. "It's very serious."

Pentagon and intelligence officials say that some shipments of the new explosives have contained both components and fully manufactured devices, and may have been spirited into Iraq along the porous Iranian border by the Iranian-backed, anti-Israeli terrorist group Hezbollah, or by Iran's Revolutionary Guard. American commanders say these bombs closely matched those that Hezbollah has used against Israel.

"The devices we're seeing now have been machined," said a military official who has access to classified reporting on the insurgents' bomb-making abilities. "There is evidence of some sophistication."

American officials say they have no evidence that the Iranian government is involved. But Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and the new United States ambassador in Baghdad, Zalmay Khalilzad, complained publicly this week about the Tehran government's harmful meddling in Iraqi affairs.

"There is movement across its borders of people and matériel used in violent acts against Iraq," Mr. Khalilzad said Monday.

But some Middle East specialists discount any involvement by the Iranian government or Hezbollah, saying it would be counter to their interests to support Iraq's Sunni Arab insurgents, who have stepped up their attacks against Iraqi Shiites. These specialists suggest that the arms shipments are more likely the work of criminals, arms traffickers or splinter insurgent groups.

"Iran's protégés are in control in Iraq right now, yet these weapons are going to people fighting Iran's protégés," said Kenneth Katzman, a Persian Gulf expert at the Congressional Research Service and a former Middle East analyst at the Central Intelligence Agency. "That makes little sense to me."

One of Iran's top priorities is to get the United States out of Iraq, which means keeping up the violence there. At the same time, that clearly works against their other goal, which is to get religious Shiites in power and keep them in power. Right now, popular support for the government of Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari, which is friendly toward Iran, is waning because it cannot deal effectively with the Sunni-based insurgency.

And while American military intelligence officers believe Iranian intelligence has a large presence in Iraq, they say it hasn't been working to destabilize the country.

[quote]


and "we" are to "believe" the USG ???? Smacks of a set up.[/url]

point made. Bush regime is not a rational /sane regime. History tells us what irrational , megalomaniacs , power hungry/greedy leaders have done. Bush stands a good chance of being archived with the likes of Hitler, Stalin, Napoleon, and others of the same stripe. (only difference is the era and society of same.)

seems possible that the US population finds it easier to accept a lying / unethical leader than a psychologically dysfunctional one--- aka "insane". Meanwhile he does exactly as he pleases , which only reinforces his power to himself. ( gosh, Napoleon would be envious) Man changes when in "power " for a while. They begin to believe they are invincible.....and in their own exaggerated power. this makes those with dysfunctional personalities, even more dangerous. And history can repeat itself.

but back to the Iran factor.........not exactly a pleasant thought.

What I don't understand is that the Shiite regime the US is setting up appears to be pro-Iranian, but, at the same time, Iran is being accused of supporting the largely Sunnie Iraqi resistance. Are they playing both sides?

The Iraqi Sunni and Iranian Shiite have a common enemy in the occupational forces of the U.S. The Iranian's still remember the repression they suffered under the U.S. puppet dictator, the Shah of Iran. While there is an enemy at their borders they are all followers of Mohammad. The Sauds are largely Sunni and they support the resistence while being cosy with the Americans.

They aren't playing both sides but no sides. They don't care about what type up regime is set up in Iraq as long as it can give the appearance of stability. Iraq is like Vietnam: all about 'how the heck do we stabalize the situation and get out without our tail between our legs'.

My take on the whole mess goes back to Bush's 'axis of Evil'. The American regime thought that Iraq would be a cakewalk and all the pieces would fall into place. Iran and N. Korea would be harder to overthrow. They believed that those regimes, after seeing the American success in Iraq would hum and haw but 'roll over' and get 'with the programme'.

That obviously hasn't happened. The USA, although still a threat to both Iran and N. Korea, is less of a threat than before things went wrong for the Americans in Iraq. The Americans are just not in any position militarily or politically to take on those two countries...ironically the two that might soon actually possess WMDs.

So why are the Americans still ranting about Iran? Perhaps the neo-cons have such a deep seated ideology that they can't turn it off. Perhaps it's a bit like the mentality of Hitler's inner circle in WW2...sort of 'if you think you're tough on terrorism (or in Hitler's circles 'Jews') then look how tough I am'. A one upmanship that could be right out of Monty Python is it wasn't real. Nobody in that inner circle wants to be the first to blink or admit that the emperor has no clothes. They will rant against Iran and N. Korea as if everything is actuall going well in Iraq and the 'plan' is unfolding as originally expected.

(a note: I don't think Bush is a bad guy like Hitler...Bush is just a dim lightbulb among some influential people).

Halliburton secretly doing business with key member of Iran's nuclear team

Jason Leopold | August 6, 2005

Scandal-plagued Halliburton, the oil services company once headed by Vice President Dick Cheney, was secretly working with one of Iran's top nuclear program officials on natural gas related projects and, allegedly, selling the official's oil development company key components for a nuclear reactor, according to Halliburton sources with intimate knowledge into both companies' business dealings.

Just last week a National Security Council report said Iran was a decade away from acquiring a nuclear bomb. That time frame could arguably have been significantly longer if Halliburton, which just reported a 284 percent increase in its fourth quarter profits due to its Iraq reconstruction contracts, was not actively providing the Iranian government with the financial means to build a nuclear weapon.

Now comes word that Halliburton, which has a long history of flouting U.S. law by conducting business with countries the Bush administration said have ties to terrorism, was working with Cyrus Nasseri, the vice chairman of Oriental Oil Kish, one of Iran's largest private oil companies, on oil development projects in Tehran. Nasseri is also a key member of Iran's nuclear development team.

"Nasseri, a senior Iranian diplomat negotiating with Europe over Iran's controversial nuclear program is at the heart of deals with US energy companies to develop the country's oil industry," the Financial Times reported.

Nasseri was interrogated by Iranian authorities in late July for allegedly providing Halliburton with Iran's nuclear secrets and accepting as much as $1 million in bribes from Halliburton, according to Iranian government officials.

It's unclear whether Halliburton was privy to Iran's nuclear activities. A company spokesperson did not return numerous calls for comment. The White House also did not return calls for comment.

Oriental Oil Kish dealings with Halliburton became public knowledge in January when the company announced that it had subcontracted parts of the South Pars natural gas drilling project to Halliburton Products and Services, a subsidiary of Dallas-based Halliburton that is registered in the Cayman Islands.

Following the announcement, Halliburton announced the South Pars gas field project in Tehran would be its last project in Iran. The BBC reported that Halliburton, which took in $30-$40 million from its Iranian operations in 2003, "was winding down its work due to a poor business environment."

Halliburton, under mounting pressure from lawmakers in Washington, D.C., pulled out of its deal with Nassri's company in May, but has done extensive work on other areas of the Iranian gas project and was still acting in an advisory capacity to Nasseri's company, two people who have knowledge of Halliburton's wor in Iran said.

In attempt to curtail other U.S. companies from engaging in business dealings with rogue nations, the Senate approved legislation July 26 that would penalize companies that continue to skirt U.S. law by setting up offshore subsidiaries as a way to legally conduct business in Libya, Iran and Syria, and avoid U.S. sanctions under International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The amendment, sponsored by Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, is part of the Senate Defense Authorization bill.

"It prevents U.S. corporations from creating a shell company somewhere else in order to do business with rogue, terror-sponsoring nations such as Syria and Iran," Collins said in a statement.

"The bottom line is that if a U.S. company is evading sanctions to do business with one of these countries, they are helping to prop up countries that support terrorism—most often aimed against America," she said.

The law currently doesn't prohibit foreign subsidiaries from conducting business with rogue nations provided that the subsidiaries are truly independent of the parent company.

But Halliburton's Cayman Island subsidiary never did fit that description.

Halliburton first started doing business in Iran as early as 1995, while Vice President Cheney was chief executive of the company, in possible violation of U.S. sanctions. According to a February 2001 report in the Wall Street Journal, "Halliburton Products & Services Ltd. works behind an unmarked door on the ninth floor of a new north Tehran tower block. A brochure declares that the company was registered in 1975 in the Cayman Islands, is based in the Persian Gulf sheikdom of Dubai and is 'non-American.' But, like the sign over the receptionist's head, the brochure bears the company's name and red emblem, and offers services from Halliburton units around the world." Moreover, mail sent to the company's offices in Tehran and the Cayman Islands is forwarded to the company's Dallas headquarters.

Not surprisingly, a letter drafted by trade groups representing corporate executives vehemently objected to the amendment saying it would lead to further hatred and perhaps incite terrorist attacks on the U.S and "greatly strain relations with the United States' primary trading partners."

"Extraterritorial measures irritate relations with the very nations the U.S. must secure cooperation from to promote multilateral strategies to fight terrorism and to address other areas of mutual concern," said a letter signed by the Coalition for Employment through Exports, Emergency Coalition for American Trade, National Foreign Trade Council, USA Engage, U.S. Council on International Business and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. "Foreign governments view U.S. efforts to dictate their foreign and commercial policy as violations of sovereignty, often leading them to adopt retaliatory measures more at odds with U.S. goals."

Still, Collins' amendment has some holes. As Washington Times columnist Frank Gaffney pointed out in a July 25 story, "the Collins amendment would seek to penalize individuals or entities who evade IEEPA sanctions—if they are "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States."

"This is merely a restatement of existing regulations. The problem with this formulation is that, in the process of purportedly closing one loophole, it would appear to create new ones. As Sen. Collins told the Senate: 'Some truly independent foreign subsidiaries are incorporated under the laws of the country in which they do business and are subject to that country's laws, to that legal jurisdiction. There is a great deal of difference between a corporation set up in a day, without any real employees or assets, and one that has been in existence for many years and that gets purchased, in part, by a U.S. firm.' It is a safe bet that every foreign subsidiary of a U.S. company doing business with terrorist states will claim it is one of the ones Sen. Collins would allow to continue enriching our enemies, not one prohibited from doing so."

Going a step further, Dow Jones Newswires reported that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission sent letters in June to energy corporations demanding that the companies disclose in their security filings any business dealings with terrorist supporting nations.

"The letters have been sent by the SEC's Office of Global Security Risk, a special division that monitors companies with operations in Iran and other countries under U.S. sanctions, which were created by the U.S. Congress in 2004," Dow Jones reported.

The move comes as investors have become increasingly concerned that they may be unwillingly supporting terrorist activity. In the case of Halliburton, the New York City Comptroller's office threatened in March 2003 to pull its $23 million investment in the company if Halliburton continued to conduct business with Iran.

The SEC letters are aimed at forcing corporations to disclose their profits from business dealings in rogue nations. Oil companies, such as Devon Energy Corp., ConocoPhillips, Marathon Oil Corp. and Occidental Petroleum Corp. that currently conduct business with countries that sponsor terrorism, have not disclosed the profits received from terrorist countries in their most recent quarterly reports because the companies don't consider the earnings "material."

Devon Energy was until recently conducting business in Syria. The company just sold its stake in an oil field there. ConocoPhillips has a service contract with the Syrian Petroleum Co. that expires on Dec. 31.

ITs called PROBLEM, REACTION ,SOLUTION They create the problem to fet the reaction to offer their solution .How much more evidence do you need .

gHalliburton secretly doing business with key member of Iran's nuclear team

Jason Leopold | August 6, 2005

Scandal-plagued Halliburton, the oil services company once headed by Vice President Dick Cheney, was secretly working with one of Iran's top nuclear program officials on natural gas related projects and, allegedly, selling the official's oil development company key components for a nuclear reactor, according to Halliburton sources with intimate knowledge into both companies' business dealings.

Just last week a National Security Council report said Iran was a decade away from acquiring a nuclear bomb. That time frame could arguably have been significantly longer if Halliburton, which just reported a 284 percent increase in its fourth quarter profits due to its Iraq reconstruction contracts, was not actively providing the Iranian government with the financial means to build a nuclear weapon.

Now comes word that Halliburton, which has a long history of flouting U.S. law by conducting business with countries the Bush administration said have ties to terrorism, was working with Cyrus Nasseri, the vice chairman of Oriental Oil Kish, one of Iran's largest private oil companies, on oil development projects in Tehran. Nasseri is also a key member of Iran's nuclear development team.

"Nasseri, a senior Iranian diplomat negotiating with Europe over Iran's controversial nuclear program is at the heart of deals with US energy companies to develop the country's oil industry," the Financial Times reported.

Nasseri was interrogated by Iranian authorities in late July for allegedly providing Halliburton with Iran's nuclear secrets and accepting as much as $1 million in bribes from Halliburton, according to Iranian government officials.

It's unclear whether Halliburton was privy to Iran's nuclear activities. A company spokesperson did not return numerous calls for comment. The White House also did not return calls for comment.

Oriental Oil Kish dealings with Halliburton became public knowledge in January when the company announced that it had subcontracted parts of the South Pars natural gas drilling project to Halliburton Products and Services, a subsidiary of Dallas-based Halliburton that is registered in the Cayman Islands.

Following the announcement, Halliburton announced the South Pars gas field project in Tehran would be its last project in Iran. The BBC reported that Halliburton, which took in $30-$40 million from its Iranian operations in 2003, "was winding down its work due to a poor business environment."

Halliburton, under mounting pressure from lawmakers in Washington, D.C., pulled out of its deal with Nassri's company in May, but has done extensive work on other areas of the Iranian gas project and was still acting in an advisory capacity to Nasseri's company, two people who have knowledge of Halliburton's wor in Iran said.

In attempt to curtail other U.S. companies from engaging in business dealings with rogue nations, the Senate approved legislation July 26 that would penalize companies that continue to skirt U.S. law by setting up offshore subsidiaries as a way to legally conduct business in Libya, Iran and Syria, and avoid U.S. sanctions under International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The amendment, sponsored by Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, is part of the Senate Defense Authorization bill.

"It prevents U.S. corporations from creating a shell company somewhere else in order to do business with rogue, terror-sponsoring nations such as Syria and Iran," Collins said in a statement.

"The bottom line is that if a U.S. company is evading sanctions to do business with one of these countries, they are helping to prop up countries that support terrorism—most often aimed against America," she said.

The law currently doesn't prohibit foreign subsidiaries from conducting business with rogue nations provided that the subsidiaries are truly independent of the parent company.

But Halliburton's Cayman Island subsidiary never did fit that description.

Halliburton first started doing business in Iran as early as 1995, while Vice President Cheney was chief executive of the company, in possible violation of U.S. sanctions. According to a February 2001 report in the Wall Street Journal, "Halliburton Products & Services Ltd. works behind an unmarked door on the ninth floor of a new north Tehran tower block. A brochure declares that the company was registered in 1975 in the Cayman Islands, is based in the Persian Gulf sheikdom of Dubai and is 'non-American.' But, like the sign over the receptionist's head, the brochure bears the company's name and red emblem, and offers services from Halliburton units around the world." Moreover, mail sent to the company's offices in Tehran and the Cayman Islands is forwarded to the company's Dallas headquarters.

Not surprisingly, a letter drafted by trade groups representing corporate executives vehemently objected to the amendment saying it would lead to further hatred and perhaps incite terrorist attacks on the U.S and "greatly strain relations with the United States' primary trading partners."

"Extraterritorial measures irritate relations with the very nations the U.S. must secure cooperation from to promote multilateral strategies to fight terrorism and to address other areas of mutual concern," said a letter signed by the Coalition for Employment through Exports, Emergency Coalition for American Trade, National Foreign Trade Council, USA Engage, U.S. Council on International Business and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. "Foreign governments view U.S. efforts to dictate their foreign and commercial policy as violations of sovereignty, often leading them to adopt retaliatory measures more at odds with U.S. goals."

Still, Collins' amendment has some holes. As Washington Times columnist Frank Gaffney pointed out in a July 25 story, "the Collins amendment would seek to penalize individuals or entities who evade IEEPA sanctions—if they are "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States."

"This is merely a restatement of existing regulations. The problem with this formulation is that, in the process of purportedly closing one loophole, it would appear to create new ones. As Sen. Collins told the Senate: 'Some truly independent foreign subsidiaries are incorporated under the laws of the country in which they do business and are subject to that country's laws, to that legal jurisdiction. There is a great deal of difference between a corporation set up in a day, without any real employees or assets, and one that has been in existence for many years and that gets purchased, in part, by a U.S. firm.' It is a safe bet that every foreign subsidiary of a U.S. company doing business with terrorist states will claim it is one of the ones Sen. Collins would allow to continue enriching our enemies, not one prohibited from doing so."

Going a step further, Dow Jones Newswires reported that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission sent letters in June to energy corporations demanding that the companies disclose in their security filings any business dealings with terrorist supporting nations.

"The letters have been sent by the SEC's Office of Global Security Risk, a special division that monitors companies with operations in Iran and other countries under U.S. sanctions, which were created by the U.S. Congress in 2004," Dow Jones reported.

The move comes as investors have become increasingly concerned that they may be unwillingly supporting terrorist activity. In the case of Halliburton, the New York City Comptroller's office threatened in March 2003 to pull its $23 million investment in the company if Halliburton continued to conduct business with Iran.

The SEC letters are aimed at forcing corporations to disclose their profits from business dealings in rogue nations. Oil companies, such as Devon Energy Corp., ConocoPhillips, Marathon Oil Corp. and Occidental Petroleum Corp. that currently conduct business with countries that sponsor terrorism, have not disclosed the profits received from terrorist countries in their most recent quarterly reports because the companies don't consider the earnings "material."

Devon Energy was until recently conducting business in Syria. The company just sold its stake in an oil field there. ConocoPhillips has a service contract with the Syrian Petroleum Co. that expires on Dec. 31.

ITs called PROBLEM, REACTION ,SOLUTION They create the problem to get the reaction to offer their solution .How much more evidence do you need .

excellent post Stratochief. !!! You are capturing the nuances in play. Bravo.


(ps. I think , bush has enough BAD in him to be BAD in his own right . No need to compare him to hitler......as that is going backwards. (in time and in evolution) He has brought a new version of "BADNESS" onto this planet. (and the US). Each much be assessed for what it is , on an individual basis.------ IMHO)

--

new and dirtier low life tactics from the bush regime. Just when one thought they could not go any lower.......they just keep surprising everyone by "besting" themselves . Loose cannon =USG...

We have done the hitler issue...but than again, its common place innit?? a new trendy word, not really understanding the historicial aspect of history. I cannots say that I know a whole lot of historicial facts but I know enough to know the comparsion is not right. You can find things in "common" with just about everything..however as cap't pichard says...that does not make it so!

hey pea.

let's look at it from another perspective. During hitler's rise , who was he compared to??? Each butcher in history has his own characteristics, given the era, society, etc. So comparison (in reality ) is futile. What we are seeing is a new breed of something that might be hitlerlike.......and even more deadly. Much has changed since the hitler warmongering days. But human nature and society being what it is.......seems to breed a new version of the same pathology, generation after generation. A mutation perhaps??? Same basic characteristics, when one gets down to the core.

--


could get "tense".


(on the other hand, Iran needs to be able to protect itself from the looney tunes....warmongering USG now too. Double edged sword and could turn deadly. A USG invasion of Iran is a very REAL threat, not something cooked up in the back rooms of the whitehouse )

I guess.....but like any lynch mob...its all over the top to me...

[quote="Ocean Breeze"]Therefore, it is in the best interest of Canada to be VERY certain that the Northern Borders of the US feel very secure, because the US is taking Canada down with them - if they go. And it is in the very best interest of Canada to support its "family" - the US and Britain. Because, folks, like it or not, we are stuck together.


Bull Dog

I support the people but Bush is leading the world to nuclear war And if ya had a consience Bulldog you would see this guy is out to lunch and the biggest liar on the face of the planetHow can you support this guy

[quote="bulldog"]
is that a veiled "threat"???

And NO , we are NOT STUCK together. Intertwined , trade -wise, economy wise , sure......but nothing is permanent. And things are changing.....

One is only "stuck" if one chooses to be "stuck.".

ya know what mr.mom. I can't even "support" the people ( Americans ) anymore. Something has changed and it is due to their complacency about their own gov't. It is also about how they choose NOT to see what is happening in the larger picture. Seems "they " just continue to appease the bush regime and the bush regime continues to lie to them, treat them like fools , with no respect for the population, etc. How can one "respect" a population that bows so blindly and obediently to its wanna be emperor /king?? ( particularly in this era and age of communication/ education and enlightenment?)


What is really interesting......and again, particularly due to the era we are in. (modern ?? progressive??? Thinking??)..... is that so many Americans CHOOSE to "appease" , bow to, act in servitude to their gov't. ( empowering their gov't even more.) Peoples in dictatorships have no choice. ( and they don't "worship" their leaders the way many Americans do. (whether they admit it to themselves or not)

[quote="Ocean Breeze"][quote="bulldog"]Yes, we are stuck and you know it!

OK, let's take A BIG CHAIN SAW. Cut Canada loose from the US.
We can drift north. BRRR. We can drift west to Russia - BRRR.
Or we can drift east to Britain. The US, meanwhile, is firmly attached to Mexico. What a big island Canada would make.

We aren't going anywhere. We are attached to the US/look at the map, silly goose. We cannot get away from one another. Accept it. And brace yourself for this bit of political humor.



Bull Dog