Iran
Like Iraq in 2003, the claim that Iran is building nuclear weapons is being used to get the U.S. population to support this unjustified and illegal attack. Both the CIA and the International Atomic Energy Agency have stated recently that they have no evidence of a nuclear bomb program in Iran. Iran has a legal right to pursue a program for nuclear power.
Despite repeated requests from thousands of citizens to prohibit the President from attacking Iran, Congress has not passed any legislation to stop the President in his moves toward this military disaster. It is urgent that Congress put on the brakes on Bush’s bellicose ambitions, or the U.S. will face serious economic, military and political repercussions for decades to come.
Contact Congress at 202-224-3121 and tell them “no war on Iran".
This letter has not been edited.
I bet they have "plans" drawn up for most countries and scenarios in the world. Most likely for countries we call "friendly" What do you think the Pentagon does each day?
You can only spend so much time a day creating new mazes to navigate for a treasure hunt weekly!
If the current Admin did not plan out scenarios for security, most would call for action because they were lax in their responsibilities.
Yes I too have seen where the IAEA has disputed findings by CIA and other agencies since 2002. But if a person reads the entire articles, the IAEA has great doubts regarding Iran's peacefull use of nuclear energy.
Is it for peaceful use? Sabre rattling for Middle East "dominance" or is it truly creating a nuclear weapons strategy?
I am not advocating an attack, but I truly want to hear the letter writer's response if nuclear energy is not used for peaceful means. I dont think a "My Bad" will suffice. Nor should it be acceptable from ANY future administration.
"Iran has a legal right to pursue a program for nuclear power."
Not according to the UN they don't.
Posted by KW on May 11, 2007 04:02 PMMy understanding is that Iran can use nuclear power for peaceful purposes, but only subject to limitations imposed on it by the IAEA, or, I suppose, the U.N. This from a Wikipedia article on the subject:
"Since very few of the nuclear weapons states and states using nuclear reactors for energy generation are willing to completely abandon possession of nuclear fuel, the third pillar of the NPT under Article IV provides other states with the possibility to do the same, but under conditions intended to make it difficult to develop nuclear weapons."
"Article IV of the NPT has been interpreted by some states to grant them a right to uranium enrichment for fuel reasons, but seems to be a major loophole, since there are no significant legal barriers distinguishing between a state's capability to enrich uranium for reactor fuel and the ability to enrich to a level that can be used in nuclear weapons (see dual-use technology). The treaty recognizes the inalienable right of sovereign states to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, but restricts this right for NPT parties to be exercised "in conformity with Articles I and II" (the basic nonproliferation obligations that constitute the "first pillar" of the Treaty). "
"NNWS [Non-Nuclear Weapon Stsate] parties to the NPT agree not to "receive," "manufacture" or "acquire" nuclear weapons or to "seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons" (Article II). NNWS parties also agree to accept safeguards by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to verify that they are not diverting nuclear energy from peaceful uses to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices (Article III)."
Posted by Truth on May 11, 2007 07:00 PMIf it is for peaceful means, then they have the right by all means. Am I comfortable with it? Not really but not my call and they do have that right. Heck I wish we would put more of our efforts into clean nuclear energy. It sounds like this may become more of a reality with conservation issues raising.
If only for peaceful reasons, why the hedging on some inspections and documentation.
My original point is that the author of this letter only gave part of the story and can tend to lead the readers that IAEA is in full support of Iran and its only peaceful energy use
Posted by Soros Mini Me on May 11, 2007 10:29 PMSeems as if I remember the conservative position - as expressed by Goldwater and the General who was his accompanying candidate for Vice President - was: "Bomb them back to the Stone Age". And that was proposed as ending the Viet Nam debacle, and, more or less, "saving the world from Communism".
Since the world today - according to the "conservatives" is "terribly threatened" by hordes of flying carpets bringing millions of "Islamofascists" to "invade and take over America", what is so surprising about Bush getting ready to turn the Iraq mess into the equivalent of Armageddon, by bombing Iran and invading there too?
After all, Cheney has his own private safe bunker to hide out in - as he does every time there is the slightest hint of a "threat to National Security" - and certainly there must be one for our "Great Decider" to hide out in as well, when the inevitable consequences of further acts of sheer meglomaniac stupidity start coming round.
Posted by Old Grouch on May 12, 2007 08:14 AMThat bunch of lying rug merchants in Tehran has it coming,but a 5 day attack is more stupid than the Iraq debacle(if that's possible).Violence should never be used unless its object is to so damage the enemy that he can't fight any longer.Until we can justify turning Iran into a radioactive desert,we're best off talking....
Posted by Jimminy on May 12, 2007 04:09 PM