@@ Iran should refer U.S. to Security Council for violating UNSCR-984 @@
Arash
July 30, 2005
No Stinking Badges
Dr. James Gordon Prather
Nuclear weapons physicist
Nuclear bomb tester at Lawrence Livermore
Technical director of nuclear bomb testings at Sandia
Chief scientist of the U.S. Army
U.S. Navy veteran
According to neo-crazy MEDIA SYCOPHANTS at the New York Times and elsewhere, the
Bush-Cheney administration is currently engaged in the six-party talks "aimed at ending
North Korea's nuclear weapons programs" and is "supporting" European Union efforts to
force Iran "to end its nuclear weapons program".
But MEDIA SYCOPHANTS to the contrary, that is not what the six-party talks are "aimed at",
nor is that what the European Union is attempting to do.
When Bush-Cheney came to power in 2001, Iraq, Iran, and North Korea were
"non-nuclear-weapons states parties" to the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear
Weapons (http://www.un.org/events/npt2005/npttreaty.html). Hence, all their nuclear
programs were subject to safeguards agreements with the International Atomic Energy
Agency. And as best the IAEA inspectors could determine, none of the safeguarded "special
nuclear materials" or safeguarded facilities in Iraq, Iran, and North Korea were involved
at that time in any activity that served a military purpose.
Nevertheless, in his 2002 State of the Union address
(http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/01/20020129-11.html), after singling out
Iraq, Iran, and North Korea by name as "regimes that sponsor terror" and threaten America
"with weapons of mass destruction", President Bush declared:
"I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws
closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous
regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons".
Later that year, Bush announced a new National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass
Destruction, which declared – among other things – that:
"The United States has long maintained the option of preemptive actions to counter a
sufficient threat to our national security. The greater the threat, the greater is the
risk of inaction – and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to
defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's
attack. To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States
will, if necessary, act preemptively".
But Bush had a couple of problems.
First, at the Sixth NPT Review Conference
(http://www.basicint.org/nuclear/NPT/2000revcon/finaltext.htm), held at UN Headquarters in
New York City in 2000:
"The Sixth Conference notes the reaffirmation by the nuclear-weapon states of their
commitment to the United Nations Security Council resolution 984
(http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/resolutions/SC95/984SC95.html) on security assurances for
non-nuclear-weapon states parties to the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear
Weapons".
Among other things, UNSCR 984 "RECOGNIZES" that "in case of aggression with nuclear
weapons or the threat of such aggression against a non-nuclear-weapon State Party" to the
NPT, "the nuclear-weapon State permanent members of the Security Council will bring the
matter immediately to the attention of the Council and seek Council action to provide, in
accordance with the Charter, the necessary assistance to the State victim".
In other words, if Bush had threatened to nuke North Korea prior to its withdrawal from
the NPT, China and Russia would have been REQUIRED to seek Council action against him.
Then there was a second problem.
"The Sixth Conference reaffirms that IAEA is the competent authority responsible for
verifying and assuring … compliance with its safeguards agreements … with a view to
preventing diversion of nuclear energy from peaceful uses to nuclear weapons or other
nuclear explosive devices. … It is the conviction of the Conference that nothing should be
done to undermine the authority of IAEA in this regard".
In other words, an IAEA determination that none of the safeguarded "special nuclear
materials" or safeguarded facilities in Iraq, Iran, and North Korea are involved in any
activity that serves a military purpose is final.
Nevertheless, Bush invaded Iraq in March 2003 after "DETERMINING" that Saddam Hussein had
reconstituted his nuclear weapons program in spite of the IAEA determination that he
hadn't.
Shortly after invading Iraq "to counter a sufficient threat to our national security",
Bush formally announced his Proliferation Security Initiative, PSI
(http://www.state.gov/t/np/rls/other/34726.htm). Its stated objective was to create a web
of international "counter-proliferation partnerships" to prevent proliferators from
"carrying out their trade in WMD and missile-related technology".
According to Undersecretary of State John Bolton (http://www.stopbolton.org), the PSI was
necessary because "proliferators and those facilitating the procurement of deadly
capabilities are circumventing existing laws, treaties, and controls against WMD
proliferation". Unlike the existing UN proliferation-prevention regime, "PSI is not
diverted by disputes about candidacies for director general, agency budgets, agendas for
meetings, and the like".
Like, specifically, the NPT and UNSCR 984?
So what will Bush do if the EU-Iran and six-party talks fail – as they no doubt will – to
reach an agreement acceptable to him?
Stay tuned.
Dr. Prather's radio interviews
July 23, 2005
http://www.weekendinterviewshow.com/audio/prather5.mp3
May 7, 2005
http://www.weekendinterviewshow.com/audio/prather4.mp3
May 4, 2005
http://www.charlesgoyette.com/archive/media/2005-05-04-Charles-01.mp3
April 9, 2005
http://www.weekendinterviewshow.com/audio/prather3.mp3
February 16, 2005 (Part 1)
http://www.charlesgoyette.com/archive/media/2005-02-16-Charles-04.mp3
February 16, 2005 (Part 2)
http://www.charlesgoyette.com/archive/media/2005-02-16-Charles-05.mp3
February 5, 2005
http://www.weekendinterviewshow.com/audio/prather2.mp3
December 4, 2004
http://www.weekendinterviewshow.com/audio/prather.mp3
* Physicist James Gordon Prather has served as a policy implementing official for national
security-related technical matters in the Federal Energy Agency, the Energy Research and
Development Administration, the Department of Energy, the Office of the Secretary of
Defense and the Department of the Army. Dr. Prather also served as legislative assistant
for national security affairs to U.S. Sen. Henry Bellmon, R-Okla. --ranking member of the
Senate Budget Committee and member of the Senate Energy Committee and Appropriations
Committee. Dr. Prather had earlier worked as a nuclear weapons physicist at Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory (http://www.llnl.gov) in California and Sandia National
Laboratory (http://www.sandia.gov) in New Mexico. http://www.antiwar.com/prather
Castration of NPT - U.S. instantly tore up NPT for India, so why should Iran obey a torn
up agreement!
http://groups.google.ca/group/soc.culture.iranian/msg/2c234f4a148cd298?hl=en
U.S. ripped NPT into pieces; Iran must withdraw from this annulled treaty
http://groups.google.ca/group/soc.culture.iranian/msg/fbf55e939908b2c2?hl=en
U.S. proliferation rhetoric and reality
http://groups.google.ca/group/soc.culture.iranian/msg/7d8c268ee51c07be?hl=en
Ambassador Bolton's Agenda
http://groups.google.ca/group/soc.culture.iranian/msg/1ca916601b7a7bc8?hl=en
Iran's INALIENABLE RIGHT to uranium enrichment
http://groups.google.ca/group/soc.culture.iranian/msg/245f6081b4e3d019?hl=en
A Palliative for Neo-Crazy Lies
http://groups.google.ca/group/soc.culture.iranian/msg/1b7968f98173938d?hl=en
Inalienable right without discrimination
http://groups.google.ca/group/soc.culture.iranian/msg/5012a673328fa044?hl=en
U.S. doesn't want to disarm even though it promised to do so
http://groups.google.ca/group/soc.culture.iranian/msg/c0b86cad11cb9413?hl=en
UN Referral – Not
http://groups.google.ca/group/soc.culture.iranian/msg/bddc928154c8c96a?hl=en
What Iranian obligations? What breaches? America's lies, lies, lies...
http://groups.google.ca/group/soc.culture.iranian/msg/9535c4a90df98471?hl=en
Memo to slimy senators
http://groups.google.ca/group/soc.culture.iranian/msg/7065ffd57b51a959?hl=en
U.S. promised in 2000, to get rid of it's nukes!
http://groups.google.ca/group/soc.culture.iranian/msg/1e23bafecdac9e82?hl=en
U.S. has violated Iran's NPT rights!
http://groups.google.ca/group/soc.culture.iranian/msg/02f1f48fafcac2b6?hl=en
Iran's diplomatic masterpiece
http://groups.google.ca/group/soc.culture.iranian/msg/f532352654efee1d?hl=en
Bush to sabotage NPT
http://groups.google.ca/group/soc.culture.iranian/msg/6386adef83860d3e?hl=en
West's repeated violations of "Article IV & I" against Iran
http://groups.google.ca/group/soc.culture.iranian/msg/0123ceb12dd47321?hl=en
Israel guns for Iran - Why?
http://groups.google.ca/group/soc.culture.iranian/msg/2c0274540f3957b7?hl=en
U.S. wants definition of NPT 'noncompliance' changed!!!
http://groups.google.ca/group/soc.culture.iranian/msg/2abab5a7b8bce4c5?hl=en
NTP for dummies
http://groups.google.ca/group/soc.culture.iranian/msg/f317bb918ca244da?hl=en
CNN's Wolf Blitzer & David Albright: Jews global campaign against Iran
http://groups.google.ca/group/soc.culture.iranian/msg/44fcd2a53218eb52?hl=en
The Real Threat From John Bolton
http://groups.google.ca/group/soc.culture.iranian/msg/16fb61c3cca32703?hl=en
81-mm smoking rockets
http://groups.google.ca/group/soc.culture.iranian/msg/fb2c580ba00d79a6?hl=en
U.S. plans to destroy NPT
http://groups.google.ca/group/soc.culture.iranian/msg/760abaff1d8ac7c2?hl=en
Nuts to Bush
http://groups.google.ca/group/soc.culture.iranian/msg/de936f823b4dfb11?hl=en
Iran's logic proven correct to the entire World
http://groups.google.ca/group/soc.culture.iranian/msg/a5798de678dad2a9?hl=en
Sandbagging the NSG (Nuclear Suppliers Group)
http://groups.google.ca/group/soc.culture.iranian/msg/238000abe8fe032e?hl=en
What Noncompliance?
http://groups.google.ca/group/soc.culture.iranian/msg/32f537772749ecc2?hl=en
Sandbagging the EU
http://groups.google.ca/group/soc.culture.iranian/msg/bb437d1ee00ad1e9?hl=en
Bye-Bye, NPT
http://groups.google.ca/group/soc.culture.iranian/msg/eb8e9f617d0e0867?hl=en
Jew tells Bush to lie about Iran
http://groups.google.ca/group/soc.culture.iranian/msg/c96849f55f92353e?hl=en
Targeting Non-existent Nukes?
http://groups.google.ca/group/soc.culture.iranian/msg/e25e86754767e3ef?hl=en
Blindly Backing Israel Against Iran
http://groups.google.ca/group/soc.culture.iranian/msg/ca49370dcc1f41a4?hl=en
Condi Desperate to Stop EU-China-Iran Chain Reaction
http://groups.google.ca/group/soc.culture.iranian/msg/26e6a24b43339654?hl=en
The Impossible Dream in the State of the Union Address
http://groups.google.ca/group/soc.culture.iranian/msg/74938ea7958d0764?hl=en
Targeting Iran
http://groups.google.ca/group/soc.culture.iranian/msg/dbb46af7ff3f0b66?hl=en
Bay of Pigs part 2, CIA-Israeli-MEK
http://groups.google.ca/group/soc.culture.iranian/msg/b58f2a1d8b2290ff?hl=en
Threatening Iran - despite the evidence
http://groups.google.ca/group/soc.culture.iranian/msg/ce6e09919da68cbb?hl=en
Virtual Nukes
http://groups.google.ca/group/soc.culture.iranian/msg/c245e595ad17ae57?hl=en
Iran's having the capability to enrich uranium is not even tantamount to having the
capability to produce the essentially pure uranium-235 required to make a nuke
http://groups.google.ca/group/soc.culture.iranian/msg/303c3ca53b67c0a7?hl=en
Dangerous Delusions About Iran
http://groups.google.ca/group/soc.culture.iranian/msg/42c57f2ae0cdb3b0?hl=en
Thwarting the Neo-Crazies
http://groups.google.ca/group/soc.culture.iranian/msg/66c79d721fd588d4?hl=en
Trashing the IAEA Again
http://groups.google.ca/group/soc.culture.iranian/msg/f8c610f6cc9e1fda?hl=en
U.S. keeps lying about Iran again & again
http://groups.google.ca/group/soc.culture.iranian/msg/e9f480b192bd425e?hl=en
Iran's Stealthy Nukes
http://groups.google.ca/group/soc.culture.iranian/msg/e47cc87d2b268368?hl=en
Uranium-Enrichment Myths Busted
http://groups.google.ca/group/soc.culture.iranian/msg/f7ebc6f4bed9d13a?hl=en
Iran Plays by the Rules - No Fair!
http://groups.google.ca/group/soc.culture.iranian/msg/25be300601cc8984?hl=en
Nuclear Bait and Switch
http://groups.google.ca/group/soc.culture.iranian/msg/0a0dc80ca3b8e98f?hl=en
The myth of Iranian nukes
http://groups.google.ca/group/soc.culture.iranian/msg/bf78503a661673e9?hl=en
North Korea has what Iraq didn't
http://groups.google.ca/group/soc.culture.iranian/msg/56f613221080276e?hl=en
Iran has absolute right to enrich uranium
http://groups.google.ca/group/soc.culture.iranian/msg/0a8ac2dc599976ba?hl=en
Iran is in full compliance with NPT & IAEA
http://groups.google.ca/group/soc.culture.iranian/msg/737b74e86ba897cb?hl=en
Greatest danger to the region...
http://groups.google.ca/group/soc.culture.iranian/msg/8dc85e8e88d5a806?hl=en
Non-Lethal Nukes?
http://groups.google.ca/group/soc.culture.iranian/msg/74e0acadfbb41ae7?hl=en
Allah Is the Greatest
http://groups.google.ca/group/soc.culture.iranian/msg/4e6ac98d1bb0fe0e?hl=en
Decision 2004
http://groups.google.ca/group/soc.culture.iranian/msg/baa772c028a6a555?hl=en
Déjà Vu, ElBaradei?
http://groups.google.ca/group/soc.culture.iranian/msg/138faa813005b6a8?hl=en
Bush & the three Persian Magi
http://groups.google.ca/group/soc.culture.iranian/msg/9e7641d3ced3fec1?hl=en
Casus Belli: High-Pitched Whine
http://groups.google.ca/group/soc.culture.iranian/msg/2f7c7bc96d00d982?hl=en
Persian Gulf War IV
http://groups.google.ca/group/soc.culture.iranian/msg/29454d929fa359ab?hl=en
Strange bedfellows
http://groups.google.ca/group/soc.culture.iranian/msg/37546028ddd67b2c?hl=en
America's crying wolf over 'nukes'
http://groups.google.ca/group/soc.culture.iranian/msg/6339bf5a0aaaad9b?hl=en
Iran has the right to acquire nukes
http://groups.google.ca/group/soc.culture.iranian/msg/664f46964003d83e?hl=en
Iran: Nukes déjà vu
http://groups.google.ca/group/soc.culture.iranian/msg/fced1128ee813b38?hl=en
Iran neglected to say, Mother, may I?
http://groups.google.ca/group/soc.culture.iranian/msg/d3db6e1427363550?hl=en
Sharon's duplicity
http://groups.google.ca/group/soc.culture.iranian/msg/bc938d8b31de9900?hl=en
Israeli paranoia on Iran 'nukes'
http://groups.google.ca/group/soc.culture.iranian/msg/4c3a0d2537b9fff2?hl=en
Bush hawks foiled again
http://groups.google.ca/group/soc.culture.iranian/msg/d27bc80916f53519?hl=en
A nuke-free Middle East?
http://groups.google.ca/group/soc.culture.iranian/msg/f8c04bf773e569e2?hl=en
Kavik Kang
news:6aWGe.192$e82...@newscontent-01.sprint.ca...
> AntiWar
> July 30, 2005
You are such a delusional moron. Didn't it ever occur too you that Iran has
neither the power nor authority to "refer" the US to it's own security
council, that the US created, for anything? You really do live in a world
of delusional fantasy. I think you are right, Iran should attempt to do
this, just so that people like you can see that they are not capable of
doing so. Iran is a minor nation, they would be laughed out of the UN for
even making the suggestion. Literally, the whole place would break out into
open laughter. You really are a clueless moron.
> Dr. James Gordon Prather
> Nuclear weapons physicist
> Nuclear bomb tester at Lawrence Livermore
> Technical director of nuclear bomb testings at Sandia
> Chief scientist of the U.S. Army
> U.S. Navy veteran
Who had absolutely nothing at all to do with anything written below. Arash
just likes to put other people's names on the deluded nonsense that he
writes...
> According to neo-crazy MEDIA SYCOPHANTS at the New York Times and
> elsewhere, the
> Bush-Cheney administration is currently engaged in the six-party talks
> "aimed at ending
> North Korea's nuclear weapons programs" and is "supporting" European Union
> efforts to
> force Iran "to end its nuclear weapons program".
>
> But MEDIA SYCOPHANTS to the contrary, that is not what the six-party talks
> are "aimed at",
> nor is that what the European Union is attempting to do.
Yes it is, that is exactly what the talks are aimed at, you complete moron.
Have you been living in a cave for the last year? You must be the only
person on the planet that believes that the EU3's attempt to get Iran to
realize that the world, and more importantly the US, will not allow them to
have the nuclear weapons program that they are currently undertaking. What
exactly do you think it is about? Teddy bears? You really are a totally
deluded moron.
> When Bush-Cheney came to power in 2001, Iraq, Iran, and North Korea were
> "non-nuclear-weapons states parties" to the Treaty on the Nonproliferation
> of Nuclear
> Weapons (http://www.un.org/events/npt2005/npttreaty.html). Hence, all
> their nuclear
> programs were subject to safeguards agreements with the International
> Atomic Energy
> Agency. And as best the IAEA inspectors could determine, none of the
> safeguarded "special
> nuclear materials" or safeguarded facilities in Iraq, Iran, and North
> Korea were involved
> at that time in any activity that served a military purpose.
Yes they were. North Korea had nuclear weapons BEFORE Bush was president,
and Iran's nuclear weapons program is many years old and also pre-dates
Bush. You simply don't know what you are talking about. The entire world
knows that Iran is attempting to build nuclear weapons, there isn't any
debate about that.
> Nevertheless, in his 2002 State of the Union address
> (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/01/20020129-11.html), after
> singling out
> Iraq, Iran, and North Korea by name as "regimes that sponsor terror" and
> threaten America
> "with weapons of mass destruction", President Bush declared:
And he was right... But he didn't say "America", he said the world. And he
was right...
> "I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by,
> as peril draws
> closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the
> world's most dangerous
> regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons".
Those are very wise words...
> Later that year, Bush announced a new National Strategy to Combat Weapons
> of Mass
> Destruction, which declared - among other things - that:
>
> "The United States has long maintained the option of preemptive
> actions to counter a
> sufficient threat to our national security. The greater the threat, the
> greater is the
> risk of inaction - and the more compelling the case for taking
> anticipatory action to
> defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of
> the enemy's
> attack. To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the
> United States
> will, if necessary, act preemptively".
We sure will. Iran will soon see a graphic example of this very fact if
they continue to behave like 5 year old children. So far they are "you
can't do that" and "NPT, NPT, NPT, NPT, NPT" ing themselves into a series of
massive air strikes that will see their entire nuclear program reduced to
rubble. How long will it take them to figure out that they are completely
at our mercy and that we can destroy their nuclear program at our leisure?
They are totally defenseless, and can do nothing to prevent this from
happening. How long are they going to continue to behave in a manner which
is indistiguishable from a 5 year old American child?
Why are you qouting all of the things that prove this very fact? I would
think you would wish to avoid highlighting these things in your propaganda
campaign...
> But Bush had a couple of problems.
No, he doesn't have any problems. We can do anything we want, really.
That's how the world works. The most powerful nation in the world can
really do whatever it wants. You really do have a great deal of very basic
and elementary things to learn about the reality global relations.
> First, at the Sixth NPT Review Conference
> (http://www.basicint.org/nuclear/NPT/2000revcon/finaltext.htm), held at UN
> Headquarters in
> New York City in 2000:
>
> "The Sixth Conference notes the reaffirmation by the nuclear-weapon
> states of their
> commitment to the United Nations Security Council resolution 984
> (http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/resolutions/SC95/984SC95.html) on security
> assurances for
> non-nuclear-weapon states parties to the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of
> Nuclear
> Weapons".
No problem there... Iran is attempting to build a global nuclear arsenal,
and they are not allowed to because we say so. Your precious "NPT" has
absolutely nothing to do with the situation. It was, after all, created by
the US and Russia specifically to prevent countries like Iran from building
nuclear arsenals. Since Iran is doing so anyway, it has failed and is no
longer relevant to Iran.
> Among other things,
"Other things"... You still haven't mentioned any "problems" yet...
> UNSCR 984 "RECOGNIZES" that "in case of aggression with nuclear
> weapons or the threat of such aggression against a non-nuclear-weapon
> State Party" to the
> NPT, "the nuclear-weapon State permanent members of the Security Council
> will bring the
> matter immediately to the attention of the Council and seek Council action
> to provide, in
> accordance with the Charter, the necessary assistance to the State
> victim".
Hahahahaha. They are free to go ahead and try. Iran's problem there is
that they are NOT a "non-nuclear weapon state" because, as the entire world
knows with absolute certainty, they are in the process of attempting to
build a global nuclear arsenal. So this does not apply to Iran. But then
again, the NPT no longer applies to Iran at all, since they are violating it
by attempting to build a global nuclear arsenal. There is no debate about
that obvious fact, even the French aknowledge it. So this clause does not
apply because Iran is NOT a "non-nuclear weapon state", they forfitted that
status when they began their nuclear weapons program. Of course, the NPT as
a whole no longer applies to Iran for this very same reason. Finally, the
IAEA is not the final authority on nuclear weapons, the US and/or Russia
are. If you weren't such a clueless idiot you would understand that obvious
fact.
> In other words, if Bush had threatened to nuke North Korea prior to its
> withdrawal from
> the NPT, China and Russia would have been REQUIRED to seek Council action
> against him.
No they wouldn't, because North Korea is not a "non-nuclear weapon state".
They have nuclear weapons, so that clause does not apply to them. You
really do have a severe reading comprehension problem. Either that, or you
are just plain stupid.
> Then there was a second problem.
How can there be a "second problem" when you have yet to show a "first
problem"? You truly can't read. As everyone else reading this post can
see, you are completely wrong because nations with nuclear weapons, or those
attempting to build them, are NOT "non-nuclear weapon states". You wrote
the very words that contradict everything spewing out of your puny little
brain above, you were just too stupid to understand what they meant.
> "The Sixth Conference reaffirms that IAEA is the competent authority
> responsible for
> verifying and assuring . compliance with its safeguards agreements . with
> a view to
> preventing diversion of nuclear energy from peaceful uses to nuclear
> weapons or other
> nuclear explosive devices. . It is the conviction of the Conference that
> nothing should be
> done to undermine the authority of IAEA in this regard".
>
> In other words, an IAEA determination that none of the safeguarded
> "special nuclear
> materials" or safeguarded facilities in Iraq, Iran, and North Korea are
> involved in any
> activity that serves a military purpose is final.
That is not what it means at all. Notice that they use the word "should"
above. That's because they know that the US and/or Russia will step in and
take over any time they want too. The very words you copied above amounts
to a plea on their part, almost begging, that they should always be the
final authority on nuclear weapons. They wrote that because they know it
isn't true, and that the US and Russia always reserve the right to step in
and take over on any issue pertaining to nuclear weapons. You really and
truly do have a severe reading comprehension problem. Either that, or you
are too stupid for words to describe.
> Nevertheless, Bush invaded Iraq in March 2003 after "DETERMINING" that
> Saddam Hussein had
> reconstituted his nuclear weapons program in spite of the IAEA
> determination that he
> hadn't.
No he didn't. That was only one of many reasons. Do I really need to cut
and paste the actual reasons for invading Iraq that none of you enemy
propagandists ever even attempt to respond too? You know, that one you guys
always ignore... Yes, I think I will...
***
"We don't fight wars based on "level of guilt", we do it based on strategic
considerations. For example, when Japan attacked us we did not invade
Japan. We invaded Tunisia. In fact, Japan was the very LAST country that
we invaded in the entire war. Why did we invade Tunisia first and Japan
last after Japan attacked us? Because it was the most logical thing to do.
We aren't treating WWIII ANY DIFFERENTLY AT ALL than we treated WWII. We
are in the place that is the most strategically advantageos place for us too
be. Iraq is the best place for us too be because we were attacked by a
"movement" that exists throughout the entire region. Iraq is in the exact
center of that region. From Iraq, we can attack anywhere within that region
that we need too. On top of that, another primary reason for being in Iraq
is "Finlandization", which essentially means that all nations bordering Iraq
now share a border with the US and have no choice but to become more
friendly with us... this effects not only the governments, but also the
civilian populations of those nations. The effects of Finlandization have
already been seen, both in the events that took place in Lebennon and polls
showing that support for OBL and suicide bombers have DRASTICALLY reduced in
the last two years.
Want justification? We were attacked by a movement that exists within all
nations of the region, the region where we have invaded the nation that sits
in the exact center. This movement believed that they could do whatever
they wanted, and would be immune from reprisal, simply because they were not
a nation with borders. But that is not the case. We gave all nations a
choice of which side of this war, which is very clearly and obviously a
world war (which means a war that takes place in a region of the world
rather than between two nations, Europe being involved is not a
requirement), and some nations chose badly. A nation can not say "the enemy
who attacked you is here, but we aren't going to do anything about it, and
you can't attack us because we didn't attack you". This is not how the
world works. These nations were given a choice. Some chose to join us
(Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, for example) while other chose to stick their
tounges out at us and claim that we had no right to attack them since they
never attacked us. They were wrong. We aren't that stupid, and you don't
get to attack the United States and get away with it on a technicality. Had
Iraq chosen to join the allies and help us fight the war on terror, they
would not have been invaded. But they chose to join the "Axis" and refuse
to cooperate (thus attempting to assist and protect our attackers) and
therefore chose to be at war with the US in WWIII.
In addition, the US and Iraq were already technically at war before 911 even
happened. Only one justification is needed for war as far as the UN is
concerned, and the UN is not an authority anyway, but even by the UN's
standards the US was already at war with Iraq for three different reasons.
1) Iraq was firing at US military assets. 2) Iraq was in violation
(numerous violations) of the cease-fire from a previous war. 3) Iraq had
attempted to assinanate the former "Head of State" of the United States.
All three are valid justifications for war according to the UN, who has no
authority anyway, but even by their standards the US was already techincally
at war with Iraq before 911 even happened. This honestly would take 12-15
pages to explain in complete detail, and a far more complete picture can be
had by search my posts of about 4 months ago. But these are the basics of
the true, actual, real reasons why we are in Iraq. You might disagree with
them, but denying that these are the reasons is not a rational position.
Denying reality is never a rational position. And, obviously, these reasons
have never been "discredited" as the poster claimed because, obviously,
reality can not be "discredited".
What I want to know, since I went to the effort of answering your dishonest
question that you have seen the answer too so many times I couldn't even try
to count, is what you would have done in response to the US mainland being
attacked. Would you have done nothing, "lo yeeOn"? Would you simply cowar
under a bed and pray that the bad men would leave you alone? If not, you
have to land an army somewhere... where would you have landed an army? What
is your alternative response? None of you ever answer this because the only
answer you can give is "I wouldn't do anything, I want to see America
destroyed". So your objection isn't that we are in Iraq, your objection is
that we cannot be defeated and that really ruins your day. My question is
real, though, where would you have attacked in response to the US being
attacked? Would you have been so stupid to simply go after one meaningless
group in Afghanistan, accomplishing nothing as the rest of the terrorist
snicker and laugh at you for being so stupid and attack us again? We are at
war with a movement that exists throughout the region, and we are there to
defeat them for real and not merely achieve a meaningless symbolic victory.
Iraq is the ONLY location from which to do that, nowhere else is a suitble
location.
So what would you do? Let's hear your "better plan". I'm all ears..."
***
That is why we are in Iraq. WMDs were only one of many reasons. I don't
suppose you would like to be the very first person to ever even make an
attempt at responding too it, would you? Or, failing that, at least the
first person to ever attempt to answer the qeustion at the end there? No, I
didn't think so, you can't advance your propaganda campaign in any way by
doing so, which is why none of you ever respond to this in any way.
> Shortly after invading Iraq "to counter a sufficient threat to our
> national security",
> Bush formally announced his Proliferation Security Initiative, PSI
> (http://www.state.gov/t/np/rls/other/34726.htm). Its stated objective was
> to create a web
> of international "counter-proliferation partnerships" to prevent
> proliferators from
> "carrying out their trade in WMD and missile-related technology".
No, that is not why invaded Iraq. Why we invaded Iraq is in this very post.
But you won't address it in any way...
> According to Undersecretary of State John Bolton
> (http://www.stopbolton.org), the PSI was
> necessary because "proliferators and those facilitating the procurement of
> deadly
> capabilities are circumventing existing laws, treaties, and controls
> against WMD
> proliferation". Unlike the existing UN proliferation-prevention regime,
> "PSI is not
> diverted by disputes about candidacies for director general, agency
> budgets, agendas for
> meetings, and the like".
>
> Like, specifically, the NPT and UNSCR 984?
Yes, exactly like that. In other words, exactly what Iran is doing right
now. Why would you post this when it so clearly states the issue that you
would prefer people not know about? You are even more stupid than I
thought.
> So what will Bush do if the EU-Iran and six-party talks fail - as they no
> doubt will - to
> reach an agreement acceptable to him?
Actually North Korea, being far more intelligent people than Iranians, have
come to understand the error of their ways and are in the process of giving
up their nuclear weapons right now. And what we will do if Iran continues
to attempt to build nuclear weapons is obvious, and you've been told this
very fact more times than I can count. Their entire nuclear program will be
completely destroyed. That is what he will do, he will completely destroy
Iran's nuclear program. You can't be this stupid, this last comment was you
intentionally ignoring the obvious answer of which you are already fully
aware. Iran will never have a nuclear weapon, because we say so. It's that
simple. It really is that simple. What do you think we are going to do?
Allow a minor nation of insignificant military power to build a global
nuclear arsenal that can rival the US and Russia's? You really are living
in a fantasy land...
> Stay tuned.
For what? More mindless babble from a deluded moron who doesn't understand
a single thing about the situation and has proven several times in this very
post that he doesn't understand what he reads? Why would anyone pay any
attention to you after you just spent like 8 pages demonstrating that you
don't have the slightest clue what you are talking about and can't
understand the very simple statements that you qouted above? You truly are
a deluded moron.