Featured Iran: It’s Not about Nuclear Weapons

Just posted on the 110 year history of Washington's preemptive regime change boogey aka Washington's century old overt/covert interventionist foreign policy of overthrowing the government's of other nations to protect and or expand corporate interests for you and CMG Rev.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=91150

Seems we've been hearing the same type of "sensationalized" justifications used to topple Saddam since 1898.

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html#c1

 

The words "suspected to be carrying" at the end sums it up. To suspect something is not the same as verifying something.

Same dubious stories and spurious justifications we've been hearing for 110 years whenever Washington decides to dance the regime change boogey.

"The Spanish blew up the Maine! Attack! Attack! Attack!" Oopsies our bad it was a coal dust explosion that blew up the Maine. Sorry about that. But look at the bright side Hearst got the war he wanted.

 

The IAEA Fact Sheet on Iraq's Nuclear Weapons Program is missing.

Everybody knew Saddam had WMDs there is no question about that Washington knew and looked the other way when Saddam was useful to them. It was probably your tax dollars that paid for them.

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Saddam a "presentable young man" with "engaging smile,"
Let's "do business," said British Embassy in 1969.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Rumsfeld met Saddam in 1984 with instructions to improve relations,
Despite chemical weapons use and sanctuary for terrorists.[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]U.S. construction giant Bechtel planned to evade 1988 CW sanctions,
Now has biggest AID contract for reconstructing Iraq.[/FONT]

Evidently the 1953 CIA coup that ended any chance Iran had at democracy wasn't such a great success after all.

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Iraq and Weapons of Mass Destruction
[/FONT]
The trigger for military action preferred by the British government, other allies, and at least some segments of the Bush administration, was a second U.N. resolution that would authorize an armed response. Other key U.N. Security Council members - including France, Germany, and Russia - argued that the inspections were working and that the inspectors should be allowed to continue. When it became apparent that the Council would not approve a second resolution, the United States and Britain terminated their attempts to obtain it. Instead, they, along with other allies, launched Operation Iraqi Freedom on March 19, 2003 - a military campaign that quickly brought about the end of Saddam Hussein's regime and ultimately resulted in his capture. (Note 3)

http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB80/

The neocons just couldn't wait for the results of the inspectors.

By the summer of 1983 Iran had been reporting Iraqi use of using chemical weapons for some time. The Geneva protocol requires that the international community respond to chemical warfare, but a diplomatically isolated Iran received only a muted response to its complaints [Note 1]. It intensified its accusations in October 1983, however, and in November asked for a United Nations Security Council investigation.

The U.S., which followed developments in the Iran-Iraq war with extraordinary intensity, had intelligence confirming Iran's accusations, and describing Iraq's "almost daily" use of chemical weapons, concurrent with its policy review and decision to support Iraq in the war [Document 24]. The intelligence indicated that Iraq used chemical weapons against Iranian forces, and, according to a November 1983 memo, against "Kurdish insurgents" as well [Document 25].

What was the Reagan administration's response?A State Department account indicates that the administration had decided to limit its "efforts against the Iraqi CW program to close monitoring because of our strict neutrality in the Gulf war, the sensitivity of sources, and the low probability of achieving desired results." But the department noted in late November 1983 that "with the essential assistance of foreign firms, Iraq ha[d] become able to deploy and use CW and probably has built up large reserves of CW for further use. Given its desperation to end the war, Iraq may again use lethal or incapacitating CW, particularly if Iran threatens to break through Iraqi lines in a large-scale attack" [Document 25]. The State Department argued that the U.S. needed to respond in some way to maintain the credibility of its official opposition to chemical warfare, and recommended that the National Security Council discuss the issue.

Following further high-level policy review, Ronald Reagan issued National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 114, dated November 26, 1983, concerned specifically with U.S. policy toward the Iran-Iraq war. The directive reflects the administration's priorities: it calls for heightened regional military cooperation to defend oil facilities, and measures to improve U.S. military capabilities in the Persian Gulf, and directs the secretaries of state and defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to take appropriate measures to respond to tensions in the area. It states, "Because of the real and psychological impact of a curtailment in the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf on the international economic system, we must assure our readiness to deal promptly with actions aimed at disrupting that traffic." It does not mention chemical weapons [Document 26].

http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

"Kurdish Insurgents" aka "Saddam's own people". Washington knew all about it. Wasn't a big deal to Washington at the time.

You can find the declassified documents at this link http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/special/iraq/

Moving on. It's gonna take a while to read all these have patience

 

So Rev have you found the proof that Iran has an active nuclear weapons program yet?

Or do you need more time?

 

Of course he's ignoring me. He can't come up with the proof to back his claim and he knows it.

Everyone with a brain knows that a nuclear program is not the same as an active nuclear weapons program. Your claim is that "Iran has an active nuclear weapons program". So prove it don't play the semantics game, we've all seen this ploy before when you neocons get caught making baseless claims. It isn't working anymore.

The mainstream media just echoes the baseless claims being made by people who have been telling us Iran would have a nuclear weapon within days or weeks for 20 years.

Everyone here knows how you can go on and on about how crazy people are not to believe the same lies over and over like you do. It's like a broken record.

Show me the proof. You are making the claim Iran has an active nuclear weapons program. It falls to those making the claim to prove what they are saying. At least that's what all you neocons have been telling me.

If I make a claim you say "prove it".

If you make a claim you say, "we don't have to prove it anyone with a brain knows what we say is true".

So far all you have proven is that you are much better at being a hypocrite and insulting people than proving your claim that "Iran has an active nuclear weapons program".

Man up. You made the claim now prove it or admit that you can't prove it.

Here's a hint, ignoring people that ask you to prove your claims does not prove your claims are true.

 

And yet you are the one having to resort to semantics and double talk.

I assume your next debate tactic will be falling back to the old neocon fear mongering line used to justify the invasion of Iraq. "We don't want the proof that Saddam has nuclear weapons coming in the form of mushroom clouds over America".

Come to find out after we destroyed Iraq and set it on a very long and bloody course of civil war and sectarian atrocities, Saddam didn't have nuclear weapons or even an active nuclear weapons program after all.

Everyone knows the neocon's are trying desperately to justify a war with Iran based on the claim Iran has an active nuclear weapons program playing little word games like you are doing now only shows that the claims being made daily by the MSM are baseless.

Quit playing around and show me the proof or admit you cannot.

 

Here's two guys that are always saying other posters sources aren't credible that have built a whole paradigm based on what their sources that claim Iran has an active nuclear weapons program with no proof even when all the intell says their is no evidence. And they make the same bogus claim they cannot prove over and over.

That's not credibilty folks that's baseless propaganda. It's the "big lie" theory in practice.

This thread can go either of three ways.

TND and the Rev will show me the proof Iran has an active nuclear weapons program.

TND and the Rev will start fear mongering.

TND and the Rev will go silent.

 

We could always have General Electric build Iran's reactors like they did for the Japanese. Their safety record is almost perfect.