Saturday, February 25, 2012

Re: Nuclear Hypocrisy

U.S. intelligence reports in 2007 and 2010 came up with no evidence
that Iran is currently attempting to build or acquire nuclear
weapons.
--------------------------

November, 2011.

The UN says they are.

Start trashing the UN, and supporting the US. That will be a switch
that will be fun to watch.

On Feb 24, 6:58 pm, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Let's review:
>
> Iranian President ImADinnerJacket has repeatedly stated that (1) He doesn't
> believe that the holocaust ever transpired;  (2)  If he and Iran has
> anything to do with it,  "He/Iran"  will wipe Israel off the face of the
> earth;  (3) Iran and I'mADinnerJacket have continuously aided and abetted
> the attacks against American troops who are stationed in the Middle East;
> (4) Although I'mADinnerJacket denies it,  there is no legitimate question
> that Iran is attempting to arm itself with nuclear weaponry.
>
> On top of that:
>
> (1) Iran attacked a sovereign diplomatic corps in Tehran in 1979,  which
> most likely included I'mADinnerJacket in the militia that attacked the U.S.
> Embassy;  (2)  Iran has never apologized,  nor have they ever attempted to
> repatriate the United States for this flagrant violation of international
> law; (3)  Iran technically controls the Straits of Hormuz  and has
> continuously threatened to cut off this requisite international waterway,
> thereby restricting the flow of oil;  (4)  Iranian funded Hezbollah and
> that other Godforsaken entity that Iran funds have continuously attacked
> and supplied weaponry to those who are resisting American forces within
> Iraq, Afghanistan,  and everywhere else our troops have been stationed;
>
> I'm sure I am missing a number of Iranian transgressions,  but the point
> being,  sometimes pre-emptive strikes against madmen are necessary,  and
> worthwhile.  President I'mADinnerJacket and his theological government
> cannot be allowed to possess nuclear weaponry.....This is a danger not only
> to the United States, but to the world.
>
> On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 10:13 AM, plainolamerican <plainolameri...@gmail.com
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > It doesn't matter what they say ... some Americans will stay afraid of
> > Iran. It's a old and sad story that costs Americans more tax dollars
> > and soldiers.
>
> > On Feb 24, 9:06 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > > "U.S. intelligence reports in2007and2010came up with no evidence that
> > Iran is currently attempting to build or acquire nuclear weapons. The
> > International Atomic Energy Agency and UN inspectors have confirmed it. The
> > chief of Israel's Mossad,Tamir Pardo, "doesn't think a nuclear Iran is an
> > existential threat to Israel."James Clapper, the U.S. director of National
> > Intelligence, recently told the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence,
> > "We assess Iran is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons, in
> > part by developing various nuclear capabilities that better position it to
> > produce such weapons, should it choose to do so. We do not know, however,
> > if Iran will eventually decide to build nuclear weapons." According to
> > Pentagon spokesmanGeorge Little, "We have no indication that the Iranians
> > have made a decision to develop a nuclear weapon.""Nuclear Hypocrisyby
> > Laurence M. Vance, February 22, 2012
> > > Republican presidential candidates and officials in the U.S. government
> > from the president on down have turned up the rhetoric against Iran.
> > > In his State of the Union address,Barack Obamastated, "America is
> > determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take
> > no options off the table to achieve that goal."
> > > Secretary of StateHillary Clintonreiterated that "it is the policy of
> > this administration that Iran cannot be permitted to have a nuclear weapon
> > and no option has ever been taken off the table."
> > > U.S. State Department spokesmanMark Tonermaintains that the Obama
> > administration "is absolutely committed to preventing Iran from getting
> > nuclear weapons."
> > > During a recent campaign stop in Cleveland,Newt Gingrichwarned about the
> > dangers to Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati, and New York from an Iranian
> > nuclear strike. Said Gingrich, "Remember what it felt like on 9/11 when
> > 3,100 Americans were killed. Now imagine an attack where you add two zeros.
> > And it's 300,000 dead. Maybe a half million wounded. This is a real danger.
> > This is not science fiction. That's why I think it's important that we have
> > the strongest possible national security."
> > > Meanwhile, while campaigning in Missouri,Rick Santorumwarned Missourians
> > about Iran: "Once they have a nuclear weapon, let me assure you, you will
> > not be safe, even here in Missouri. These are folks who have been and are
> > at war with us since 1979. This is a country that has killed more troops in
> > Afghanistan and Iraq than the Iraqis and Afghans." (Funny that the Reagan
> > administration facilitated the sale of arms to Iran in 1985 and 1986 when
> > we were supposedly at war. And funny that Santorum said 1979 instead of
> > 1953 the year that the United States overthrew the democratically elected
> > government of Iran and installed an authoritarian puppet in the shah.)Mitt
> > Romneyhas said that if you elect him, "Iran will not have a nuclear weapon"
> > because "a nuclear-armed Iran is not only a threat to Israel, it is a
> > threat to the entire world." If sanctions fail to halt Iran's nuclear
> > ambitions, "there's nothing else we could do besides take military action."
> > > The charge has been made that Tehran's UN-inspected nuclear power
> > program is a front for the development of nuclear weapons to target Israel
> > and the United States.
> > > There are several things that negate that charge that the Republican
> > presidential candidates seem to have missed.
> > > U.S. intelligence reports in2007and2010came up with no evidence that
> > Iran is currently attempting to build or acquire nuclear weapons. The
> > International Atomic Energy Agency and UN inspectors have confirmed it. The
> > chief of Israel's Mossad,Tamir Pardo, "doesn't think a nuclear Iran is an
> > existential threat to Israel."James Clapper, the U.S. director of National
> > Intelligence, recently told the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence,
> > "We assess Iran is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons, in
> > part by developing various nuclear capabilities that better position it to
> > produce such weapons, should it choose to do so. We do not know, however,
> > if Iran will eventually decide to build nuclear weapons." According to
> > Pentagon spokesmanGeorge Little, "We have no indication that the Iranians
> > have made a decision to develop a nuclear weapon."
> > > But whether or not Iran is developing nuclear weapons, and whether or
> > not Iran develops nuclear weapons in the future, there are seven ways in
> > which the U.S. government is guilty of nuclear hypocrisy.
> > > First, it is the United States that helped Iran to start its nuclear
> > program. In 1967, under Dwight Eisenhower's "Atoms for Peace" program, the
> > United Statessoldthe government of Iran a 5-megawatt, light-water-type
> > research reactor. In 1978, Jimmy Carter made a deal with the shah of Iran
> > to send up to eight U.S.-made light-water reactors to Iran, but the deal
> > fell through after the Iranian revolution of 1979. A recently declassified
> > 1974 Defense Departmentmemorandumnotes that should the shah fall from
> > power, "domestic dissidents or foreign terrorists might easily be able to
> > seize any special nuclear materials stored in Iran for use in bombs." The
> > memo concludes that "an aggressive successor to the Shah might consider
> > nuclear weapons the final item needed to establish Iran's complete military
> > dominance of the region."
> > > Second, by a vote of 4 to 1, theU.S. Nuclear Regulatory
> > Commissionrecently approved licenses to build two new nuclear reactors in
> > Georgia at an existing nuclear site. The applications were submitted seven
> > years ago. That was the first time in more than 30 years that the U.S.
> > government has approved the construction of new nuclear reactors. The
> > reactors that began operation in the last decades received their initial
> > licenses before 1978. With all the talk about clean energy, green energy,
> > climate change, and the pollution from coal-fired power plants, it is
> > strange that the U.S. government has stifled the construction of new
> > nuclear reactors for peaceful use.
> > > Third, besides the United States, the countries of Russia, China,
> > France, Israel, and Great Britain, and, to a lesser extent, India,
> > Pakistan, and North Korea, have nuclear weapons. Why are these countries
> > not considered to be more of a threat to the United States than Iran?
> > Especially Pakistan, which is very unstable, seeing that it borders on
> > Afghanistan. And what about Russia and China? Director of National
> > IntelligenceJames Clapperjust stated in his Worldwide Threat Assessment
> > that "Russia and China are aggressive and successful purveyors of economic
> > espionage against the United States." The controversy regarding Iran is
> > less about nuclear weapons and more about the "sea of oil" that Iran sits
> > on and the struggle for hegemony in the Middle East.
> > > Fourth, of the 195 countries in the world, 189 of them including Iran
> > aresignersof theNuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. North Korea signed and
> > then withdrew; India, Pakistan, and Israel never signed; and the new
> > countries of Kosovo (2008) and South Sudan (2011) have not signed yet.
> > Non-nuclear signatories of the treaty agree "not to receive the transfer
> > from any transferor whatsoever of nuclear weapons or other nuclear
> > explosive devices or of control over such weapons or explosive devices
> > directly, or indirectly; not to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear
> > weapons or other nuclear explosive devices; and not to seek or receive any
> > assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive
> > devices." Article IV of the treaty allows countries to develop nuclear
> > energy for peaceful purposes: "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." Why
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

No comments:

Post a Comment