Share US Will Cause Next War Not Iran
Sep 29th, 2009 | By Keelan Balderson | Category: Featured Articles, War and Terrorism, Wars |
Print
You would think the masses would be aware that the nuclear threat from Iran is a big hoax perpetrated by western controlled media and the Israeli/US pact; after all we never did find those dang Weapons of Mass Destruction (*cough* deception) in nearby Iraq. But due to constant media bombardment they appear to have fell hook line and sinker for the exact same scam.
If there ever happens to be a war against Iran, it will because of the US!
Here are some facts to ponder before you run off to a nuclear bunker blaming Iran for every terrorist attack that has ever occurred.
1) Their nuclear facility is NOT secret.
2) Iran has not violated the terms of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty NPT.
3) Authorities were informed about the plant within the required 6 month time-frame.
3) Iran has publicly stated there is no intention for war.
4) The plant can only enrich uranium to 5% – incapable of nuclear war.
5) Iran has publicly agreed to inspections, having nothing to hide.
6) The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) states there is no concrete proof that there is or has been a nuclear weapon program in Iran.
There is absolutely no proof or in fact reason that points to Iran wanting to launch a nuclear weapon. So if western mainstream media continues to report on the situation and leaders keep talking about “threats” and “sanctions”, we will have to believe that the West WANTS to invade Iran and is using this propaganda as an excuse for doing so.
As Former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter told Democracy Now, it is nothing more than “politically motivated hype”, which as history has shown can cause millions of people to die unjustly.
As Chris Crocker might put it, LEAVE IRAN ALONE:
*You can stay up to date with WideShut using our RSS Feed, Twitter, Facebook & Youtube
of course the IAEA has no proof. there is entire sites they never have been to or even knew about before last month.
Yeah and they weren’t required to.
The US have known about this for ages, they chose the other week to start the hype. It’s all BS.
Eric:Sometimes I merely state what I blveeie. In that case, I was actually quoting the IAEA Board resolution.I’m not a lawyer and do not find these things as fascinating as you, but I’m sure in every resolution that had the word requirement before the UNSC resolutions it was clearly pointed out that this requirement was in the context of non legally binding steps Iran could take.In one of the later ones, the context language was moved away from the requirement language, but the voluntary language was still there. And still expressly applied to the requirement.The IAEA never sent to the UNSC a statement that Iran had not met a requirement without also stating that the requirement was within a voluntary context.Interestingly, Baradei did not but Amano would have lobbied and maybe made an executive decision to get rid of the voluntary language. I don’t think that would have changed anything and don’t think that if he had and Iran exposed that he did so wrongfully in an arbitration that exposure would change anything.There is one and only one argument that Iran is not upholding its international obligations. That is that Iran is not following the UNSC resolutions. No American has said otherwise ever to my knowledge, though they all use broad rather than specific language to mislead their audiences.The IAEA at least until the UNSC resolution never claimed that the requirements were not voluntary.If Iran wins an arbitration saying that the IAEA was right in calling the measures voluntary at that point, parties sympathetic to Israel’s regional nuclear monopoly at the very bare least will describe it as a nitpick that does not change the fact that Iran is not in compliance with its international obligations.They will to a large degree be right. The ruling would not remove the international obligations and there’s no reason to think anyone following the story will have new information or a new basis to evaluate Iran’s cooperation with the IAEA that they do not have today.Even worse, Amano is as anti-Iran as Gary Samore. This is a new process that offers opportunities for strategic action on the US’ part. If it gets a favorable judge appointed by the head of the ICJ, which is well within the realm of possibility, then the US can get a wishlist of binding changes made to the NPT without any negotiation or input from the non-weapons states. That would be a disaster for the non-weapons states.I don’t see any upside for Iran at all, just possible downside.