@@ Neo-crazies foiled on Iran @@
Arash
November 1, 2003
Bush hawks foiled again
Dr. James Gordon Prather
Nuclear Weapons Physicist
gpra...@worldnetdaily.com
President Bush told United Nations delegates a year ago that "our greatest
fear is that terrorists will find a shortcut to their mad ambitions, when an
outlaw regime supplies them with the technologies to kill on a massive
scale."
What "technologies" did Bush have in mind?
Nukes, of course.
What "outlaw regime" did Bush have in mind?
Well, last year, it was Iraq.
Bush claimed Iraq had secretly reconstituted its nuke programs and would
soon have enough highly enriched uranium to make a nuke or two. Bush
demanded that Iraq grant the U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency
immediate and unfettered access to all "suspect" sites.
To the consternation of the neo-crazies - who expected Iraq to refuse and
thus provide a 'casus belli' - Iraq promptly granted the IAEA such access.
Iraq insisted it had nothing to hide, that it hadn't even attempted to
reconstitute any of its nuke-related programs. The IAEA searched all the
"suspect" sites and many more, and reported to the U.N. Security Council in
mid-March that the Bush allegations were wrong.
Nevertheless, after declaring that it was the IAEA that was wrong - and
incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial to boot - we invaded Iraq.
Guess what? It was the CIA that was wrong. The Iraqis had no "weapons of
mass destruction."
Importantly, what the IAEA reported to the Security Council was the truth.
The IAEA is not incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial, after all.
Why is that important?
Well, look what just happened this month to another "outlaw regime," Iran.
Neo-crazies had claimed Iran was secretly producing highly enriched uranium
and would soon have enough to make a nuke or two. They loudly demanded that
Iran grant the IAEA immediate and unfettered access to all "suspect" sites.
Again, to the consternation of the neo-crazies - who expected Iran to refuse
and thus provide a casus belli - Iran promptly granted the IAEA such access.
Iran insisted it had nothing to hide and that all activities were consistent
with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Furthermore, to the horror of the neo-crazies, representatives of the
European Union rushed to Tehran to assure them - and declare to the world -
that in the event the IAEA did give Iran a "clean bill of health," then Iran
would not suffer the fate of Iraq.
The EU also promised the Iranians that if they subjected themselves to an
additional protocol to their IAEA Safeguards Agreement, Russia and EU
members would provide Iran access to a wide range of technologies and
products, including conventional weapons.
Curses! Neo-crazies foiled again!
Not only was there to be no Iranian casus belli, but sanctions on Iran -
which had been unilaterally levied by the United States more than 25 years
earlier - were to be essentially ignored in the future. In particular,
construction by Russia of the nuclear power plants at Bushehr would
continue.
Worse, the already strong ties between Iran and its neighbor, Russia - both
already among the top producers and marketers of oil and natural gas - were
strengthened.
Chalk up these perverse results in the war against terrorism - or the
establishment of an American hegemony over Persian Gulf oil - to the
hijacking of U.S. foreign policy by neo-crazies in the Pentagon. No need for
a superpower to practice diplomacy or have diplomats; if you see something
you want, just smash and grab.
So, denied a justification for Persian "regime change," what were the
neo-crazies to do with their Persian Gulf legions?
Well, how about Syria, another "outlaw" regime?
Sure. Have the CIA insist that Iraqi WMD had been right where the CIA said
they were, right up to the eve of the invasion.
Then, have the inarticulate CIA weenie in charge of spy-satellite
photography come forward and claim that recent analysis of photos taken on
the eve of Operation Iraqi Freedom showed a lot of truck traffic.
"Based on what we saw prior to the onset of hostilities, we certainly felt
there were indications of [weapons of mass destruction] activity," quoth the
inarticulate CIA weenie.
Were those trucks hauling the thousands of Iraqi chem-bio weapons that
Saddam Hussein had ordered his commanders to use against our troops?
No. These trucks were heading west, toward Syria, away from our forces
massed on the eastern border.
Were the neo-crazies right? Did Saddam intend, all along, to produce WMD for
terrorists? Is President al-Assad of Syria complicit?
Of course, if we invade Syria, and the neo-crazies are wrong, then we will
have compounded our error in invading Iraq.
* 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 in
California and Sandia National Laboratory in New Mexico.
Saeid Beik Rassouli
surely at this stage of the "Big Game", it is a matter of IF.....then
the EVEN BIGGER QUESTION would be to define "we":
Now.....i know alot of people from my readings and writings on the
Internet who would like to "CONSTRUCT A LIST" of all the signitaories
who would start the DEFINITION of "we" in the above REALITY, IF
SUPPOSITION:
IRESSPECTIVE of who the REST OF US ARE; it is the definition of the
"they who are FOR invading Syria after Iraq:
1 - AEI Think Tank (USA BASED) - a Conglomorate of Jewish CULT figures
amongst a largely massanic WHITE ORDER...
2 - the "WESTERN MEDIA"; NewsCorp International (Austrailian Jewish
conglomorate)
so far as WE know....let the rest of them come to this thread and add
their names: after all this is a very simple question for any who can
read English....before they can be defined as humans, let alone
americans, iranians, british, german, russian, french, christian,
moslem, jew,.....