Iran: Answering the Charges

[pault]

Answering the Charges against Iran: Dispelling the Demonising Myths

 

 

 

http://www.campaigniran.org/casmii/inde ... =node/1216

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A number of inaccurate statements about Iran have been made by politicians and repeated uncritically in the media. Campaign Iran, an international group opposed to sanctions and military intervention against Iran, here counterpose some of these popular myths against the facts as they currently stand.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Iran is developing nuclear weapons

 

 

 

There is absolutely no proof that Iran has a nuclear weapons programme. Inspections over the past three years have found no evidence of a nuclear weaponization programme. There have been over 2200 person/hours of inspections of Iran's nuclear facilities by the IAEA and Mohammed El Baradei has stated that there is no evidence that Iran has a weapons programme. There is also a religious decree by Ayatollah Khamenei, who has the final say on all major issues, against the production and use of nuclear weapons.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Iran has been blocking inspections of its nuclear plants for years

 

 

 

Iran has fully complied with International Atomic Energy Agency inspections. They signed the Addition Protocol of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and for most of the last three years have allowed inspectors "to go anywhere and see anything".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Iran is currently blocking IAEA inspections

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

After they were referred to the UN Security Council last year, Iran withdrew from the voluntary enforcement of the Additional Protocol. They are however still in full compliance with their international obligations and are allowing inspections. Inspectors from International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspected Iran's nuclear installations in Isfahan and Natanz on 10-12th January 2007 and further inspections will take place on 2-6th February 2007. The greater the threat of military action, the more difficult inspections are likely to become.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Iran is enriching uranium

 

 

 

Enrichment of uranium for domestic power purposes is an inalienable right under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Iran is believed to have enriched uranium to the 3.5% level, enough for use as nuclear fuel, but it would require 90% enrichment, with 50-100 kg of it, to make a single bomb. Even a CIAÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s official 2005 US government report states that Iran is at least 10 years away from the capacity for a nuclear weapon.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Inspectors found traces of highly enriched uranium

 

 

 

In 2004 IAEA inspectors did find traces of highly enriched uranium in the plant in Natanz. In 2005 the IAEA confirmed that this highly enriched uranium was Pakistani and came to Natanz as a result of imported centrifuges.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The UN has passed a resolution against Iran

 

 

 

There is no basis for Resolution 1737 under international law and questions have been raised as to whether political pressure was exerted on the Security Council members to vote in favour of it. Without evidence that Iran has diverted its civilian nuclear activities into a weaponization programme and since she has fully cooperated with the IAEA, there were no grounds within the NPT either to refer Iran to the UN Security Council, or to pass Resolution 1737.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The UN Security Council represents the view of the International Community

 

 

 

 

 

 

In June 2006, 56 nations signed the Baku Declaration which stated "the only way to resolve Iran's nuclear issue is to resume negotiations without any preconditions and to enhance cooperation with the involvement of all relevant parties". Similarly the Non-Aligned movement representing the majority of the international community has recognised IranÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s right for a civilian nuclear technology.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The UN resolution is only about sanctions

 

 

 

Resolution 1737 has given Iran 60 days to stop conducting uranium enrichment. After this deadline expires the US will no doubt try and pass another Resolution involving ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹Ãâtougher measures,ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ namely military intervention.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

With so much gas there is no reason for Iran to want nuclear power

 

 

 

Iran would like to export more oil and gas. It was [bleep] Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz who, under President Ford, persuaded the Shah to establish a large nuclear programme to meet its energy needs and sold the first nuclear reactor to the country.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Iran is harbouring Al Qaeda and supporting terrorists

 

 

 

There is absolutely no evidence that Iran has in any way collaborated with Al Qaeda. In fact Iran condemned the 9/11 attacks by Al Qaeda and supported CoalitionÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s attack on the Taliban.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Iran is supplying weapons and intelligence to Iraqi insurgents

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No evidence whatsoever has been produced to link the Iranian government to Iraqi insurgents. General Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, admitted at a Pentagon news conference in January 2007, that he had no evidence of the Iranian government sending any military equipment or personnel into Iraq.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Iran is planning to destroy Israel

 

 

 

Iran does not have the military power to pose an objective threat to Israel.

 

 

 

President Amadinejad ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅIsrael should be wiped of the mapÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

[warri0r45]

Interesting thoughts there. I'm not expert on the Iran issue, but I'm not surprised by the claims you make and wouldn't be surprised if they were true.

[pault]

Interesting thoughts there. I'm not expert on the Iran issue, but I'm not surprised by the claims you make and wouldn't be surprised if they were true.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The article brings up alot of points, all of which are more believable than the propoganda being pushed by American media. It's interesting to note that Ahmadinejad is not the most powerful political figure, by far, in the country, and that control actually rests with religious leaders. It's fascinating to watch how the media focuses on him, making him the enemy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For anyone too lazy to read that whole thing, you could watch this short clip from the Daily Show, featuring George lying about Iran.

[Binyam]

For anyone too lazy to read that whole thing, you could watch this short clip from the Daily Show, featuring George lying about Iran.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ok, I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that your sources may be viable here until you referred to the Daily Show as if it were a credible news source. The alone pretty much debunked everything quoted/said.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:lol:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You so funny BoBo!!

[Barihawk]

The thing is, Pault. You are right to say that the President has no power. Pretty much all power over the people is held by the Ayatollah, and he is not too friendly.

[None2None]

The thing is, Pault. You are right to say that the President has no power. Pretty much all power over the people is held by the Ayatollah, and he is not too friendly.

Well...if anyone was to take action, I would assume it wouldn't be this president, presiden't starting wars on their way out would look terrible, as if he doesn't have a bad enough rep, and keep in mind if he started the war, he'd be putting his party's (Republicans) at risk of:

 

 

 

a. Pushing more people over the edge and helping the Democrats

 

 

 

and

 

 

 

b. Loosing control of the war to the Democrats

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm a Democrat saying that, but yea, I agree with what most people have posted, we probably wont go to war with Iran (at least in the next 2 years)...

[Barihawk]

...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I was referring to the President of Iran.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But you are right.

[pault]

Ok, I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that your sources may be viable here until you referred to the Daily Show as if it were a credible news source. The alone pretty much debunked everything quoted/said.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Laughing

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You so funny BoBo!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maybe you didn't watch it; the main content is the playing of a clip of George saying that Iran is supplying insurgents in Iraq with high powered IEDs, and then then Rumsfeld and General Pace denying this is true. It is merely a video which demonstrates the difference between fact and reality, in only one of the many accusations against Iran.

 

 

 

http://movies.crooksandliars.com/TDS-Bush-Iran-IED.wmv

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Besides, I wasn't citing it as a source; if you had actually visited the website providing the article or watched the clip, you would know that it was for comic relief, and besides the Daily Show provides more accurate reporting than most major news stations, who are banging the anti-Iran drumbeat out almost as loud as Bush.

 

 

 

http://www.campaigniran.org/casmii/inde ... =node/1216

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The thing is, Pault. You are right to say that the President has no power. Pretty much all power over the people is held by the Ayatollah, and he is not too friendly.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

He may not be friendly, but he's not a threat to the civilized world. Compare Iran to another Middle Eastern nation, say Israel, which we know has nukes, and has a long history of civil rights violations and using powerful weapons against largely civilian populations. Also consider that the last war Iran was in was fought against Iraq, where the US supplied Saddam with chemical weapons and taught him how to use them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Who are the real terrorists here?

[BlueLancer]

The American media is the only media in the world to use the phrase "The iranian nuclear weapons programme". No other country even uses that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If anybody thinks otherwise, would you kindly show any proof?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The ayatollah, as stated, has issued a religious order prohibiting the production of any kind of nuclear weapons. This order cannot be broken in the country on the pain of death.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Iran doesn't even have the capacity to enrichen uranium to a bomb level, 85-90%. Like again the post already said, even the US officials acknowledge they couldn't even get ahold of one in 10 years.

[Ambassadar]

It is said that President Amadinejad rhetoric against Israel is inflammatory. However a distinction must be drawn between angry rhetoric and genuine threats.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Angry rhetoric + threats + developing nukes = A red flag you might not want to ignore.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Remember... Everyone thought Al Quaida was just angry rhetoric also before 9/11.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't understand how telling me the Ayatollah has more power is supposed to make me feel better...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No evidence whatsoever has been produced to link the Iranian government to Iraqi insurgents.

 

 

 

When replying to a question asking if Iran was supplying munitions to Iraqi insurgents the President of Iran changed the subject. If Iran wasn't involved in anything like that then why wouldn't he just say so instead of dodging the question?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Iran is planning to destroy Israel

 

 

 

Iran does not have the military power to pose an objective threat to Israel.

 

 

 

Hmm... and maybe that is one reason they are developing nukes so they can actually back up their threats then. Let's see... they are already supporting indirectly the attack on Israel through Hezbollah. Their hands are tied at the moment in doing more because if they did their regular army couldn't repel an invasion. If they had nukes on the other hand....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm tired of typing for now. Maybe I'll get around to responding to the rest of it later.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The ayatollah, as stated, has issued a religious order prohibiting the production of any kind of nuclear weapons.

 

 

 

Why do they need the centrifuges they which are only used for enriching uranium?

[BlueLancer]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The ayatollah, as stated, has issued a religious order prohibiting the production of any kind of nuclear weapons.

 

 

 

Why do they need the centrifuges they which are only used for enriching uranium?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Because, if you already didn't know, nuclear fuel needs an enrichment level of about 3.5%. Even peaceful scandinavian countries use nuclear fuel.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

They have even offered to send the uranium to be enriched in Russia or China if the US is suspicious, and they've yet to respond. Why shouldn't they be able to produce their own energy?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Angry rhetoric + threats + developing nukes = A red flag you might not want to ignore.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Proof? You must know better than the Pentagon officials then, who have already said they don't even have the capacity to develop nuclear weapons for decades.

[pault]

Angry rhetoric + threats + developing nukes = A red flag you might not want to ignore.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think you forget that the US originally helped Iran acquire a reactor, under the Atoms for Peace program in the 50's.

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_nucle ... 0s_and_60s

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also, from the article in the original post:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Iran is developing nuclear weapons

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is absolutely no proof that Iran has a nuclear weapons programme. Inspections over the past three years have found no evidence of a nuclear weaponization programme. There have been over 2200 person/hours of inspections of Iran's nuclear facilities by the IAEA and Mohammed El Baradei has stated that there is no evidence that Iran has a weapons programme. There is also a religious decree by Ayatollah Khamenei, who has the final say on all major issues, against the production and use of nuclear weapons.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Remember... Everyone thought Al Quaida was just angry rhetoric also before 9/11.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Actually, Al-Qaeda is believed (by the US government to have ties to many terrorist attacks before 9/11. Though the FBI has no "Solid evidence" connecting Bin Laden with 9/11, or for that matter, many of the other supposed "Al-Qaeda" "Sponsored" or "Inspired" terrorists attacks.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And it's not as if they are going after Bin Laden, anyway.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Al-Qaeda...media invention?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't understand how telling me the Ayatollah has more power is supposed to make me feel better...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Because he is against nukes. Way to read.

[Tigra00]

They're not developing nukes now, but they could later. The world has no tolerance for countries developing weapons like that anymore, because they're not just a threat to one country when used, they're a threat to the entire world. Mimicking an explosion used by the Sun to power itself on Earth is usually not a good freakin' plan anywhere.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We're taking Iran as a threat for two reasons: One, they've made threats against an ally of ours, and they're starting a nuclear program "for peaceful reasons" at the same time. It's not like we want to run into their country and pimp-slap their citizens, but we don't want them developing nukes behind our backs and then using them against Israel. Why they'd do that is beyond me, because messing around with an American ally is not very smart, but when religious reasons come into play, people do stupid stuff, so whatever.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I doubt Iran is going to try to attack Israel, but they're supplying terrorist groups, and that's why we're suspicious in the first place. To say there's no proof of that is crazy, because you can see the types of weapons insurgents are using are made in Iran...Military issued.

[pault]

I doubt Iran is going to try to attack Israel, but they're supplying terrorist groups, and that's why we're suspicious in the first place. To say there's no proof of that is crazy, because you can see the types of weapons insurgents are using are made in Iran...Military issued.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wow, you didn't read much in this thread did you?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is no proof the insurgents are getting IEDs (or any other kind of support) from Iran. Watch the Daily Show clip to be educated on the IED issue (and for a humorous take on the whole situation). Find me a source that shows that insurgents in Iraq are getting any support from Iran, you will have trouble, because Iran in fact is helping groups that are part of the pro-US coalition in Iraq. Iran also helped the US take down the taliban in Afghanistan. Countries like Saudi Arabia and the UAE actually fund jihad alot more than Iran.

[warri0r45]

 

I doubt Iran is going to try to attack Israel, but they're supplying terrorist groups, and that's why we're suspicious in the first place. To say there's no proof of that is crazy, because you can see the types of weapons insurgents are using are made in Iran...Military issued.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wow, you didn't read much in this thread did you?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is no proof the insurgents are getting IEDs (or any other kind of support) from Iran. Watch the Daily Show clip to be educated on the IED issue (and for a humorous take on the whole situation). Find me a source that shows that insurgents in Iraq are getting any support from Iran, you will have trouble, because Iran in fact is helping groups that are part of the pro-US coalition in Iraq. Iran also helped the US take down the taliban in Afghanistan. Countries like Saudi Arabia and the UAE actually fund jihad alot more than Iran.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I thought I heard on the news once about the use of 'iranian shells' by those in lebanon and/or iraq. My memory isn't that great so don't take my word for it or ask for a source.

[Tigra00]

 

I doubt Iran is going to try to attack Israel, but they're supplying terrorist groups, and that's why we're suspicious in the first place. To say there's no proof of that is crazy, because you can see the types of weapons insurgents are using are made in Iran...Military issued.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wow, you didn't read much in this thread did you?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is no proof the insurgents are getting IEDs (or any other kind of support) from Iran. Watch the Daily Show clip to be educated on the IED issue (and for a humorous take on the whole situation). Find me a source that shows that insurgents in Iraq are getting any support from Iran, you will have trouble, because Iran in fact is helping groups that are part of the pro-US coalition in Iraq. Iran also helped the US take down the taliban in Afghanistan. Countries like Saudi Arabia and the UAE actually fund jihad alot more than Iran.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ah yes, Iran totally supports our coalition...All while calling us "Big Satan" and telling us we're infidels who are going to crumble and burn!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The USA claims, as of lately, that they do have evidence that Iran is helping the Jihadists out with weapons and stuff, but it hasn't been shown...yet. It will be shown if Iran doesn't stop enriching Uranium or whatever.

[pault]

The USA claims, as of lately, that they do have evidence that Iran is helping the Jihadists out with weapons and stuff, but it hasn't been shown...yet. It will be shown if Iran doesn't stop enriching Uranium or whatever.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You are connecting two different issues. Yet neither Irans aspiration to acquire nuclear power (originally aided by the US in the 50's, we gave them a reactor) nor its supposed aid to groups in Iraq, pose a threat to the United States.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Please, please, please, read some of the supplied text and attempt to respond to it instead of repeating a watered down version what you hear on CNN in a fellacious attempt at a rebuttal.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I thought I heard on the news once about the use of 'iranian shells' by those in lebanon and/or iraq. My memory isn't that great so don't take my word for it or ask for a source.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I shouldn't ask for a source? I should, and you should have one. I could find one for you, but that wouldn't help your critical thinking skills much, would it?

[Binyam]

 

I doubt Iran is going to try to attack Israel, but they're supplying terrorist groups, and that's why we're suspicious in the first place. To say there's no proof of that is crazy, because you can see the types of weapons insurgents are using are made in Iran...Military issued.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wow, you didn't read much in this thread did you?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is no proof the insurgents are getting IEDs (or any other kind of support) from Iran. Watch the Daily Show clip to be educated on the IED issue (and for a humorous take on the whole situation). Find me a source that shows that insurgents in Iraq are getting any support from Iran, you will have trouble, because Iran in fact is helping groups that are part of the pro-US coalition in Iraq. Iran also helped the US take down the taliban in Afghanistan. Countries like Saudi Arabia and the UAE actually fund jihad alot more than Iran.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You just dont get it, do you? Just because it was said here, or because some guy talked about it on his blog, or whatever, and made it sound believable, DOES NOT make it true.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The TRUTH is, that Iran has been one of the world's leading statet sponsors of terrorism since the Shah was overthrown in 1979 and the Ayatollah took power. Why would they change that now, when things are just getting interesting for them? While I doubt that Iran would supply Al'Qaeda, since it is primarily a Sunni group, I would not doubt in the least that they support groups such as the Mahdi Army, given that they are militant Shi'a groups.

[Tigra00]

 

The USA claims, as of lately, that they do have evidence that Iran is helping the Jihadists out with weapons and stuff, but it hasn't been shown...yet. It will be shown if Iran doesn't stop enriching Uranium or whatever.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You are connecting two different issues. Yet neither Irans aspiration to acquire nuclear power (originally aided by the US in the 50's, we gave them a reactor) nor its supposed aid to groups in Iraq, pose a threat to the United States.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Please, please, please, read some of the supplied text and attempt to respond to it instead of repeating a watered down version what you hear on CNN in a fellacious attempt at a rebuttal.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I thought I heard on the news once about the use of 'iranian shells' by those in lebanon and/or iraq. My memory isn't that great so don't take my word for it or ask for a source.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I shouldn't ask for a source? I should, and you should have one. I could find one for you, but that wouldn't help your critical thinking skills much, would it?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Um, dude...? It isn't even about a threat to the USA. It's mostly about them being a threat to Israel and the east in general. And if they're supplying groups in Iraq (you just said they were aswell), then obviously that's not to HELP our troups.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

...But you say I'm just listening to the news and talking about what I hear? Yea, okay...

[pault]

The TRUTH is, that Iran has been one of the world's leading statet sponsors of terrorism since the Shah was overthrown in 1979 and the Ayatollah took power. Why would they change that now, when things are just getting interesting for them? While I doubt that Iran would supply Al'Qaeda, since it is primarily a Sunni group, I would not doubt in the least that they support groups such as the Mahdi Army, given that they are militant Shi'a groups.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The situation is vastly more complicated than Iran "Supporting" Shi'a groups. The TRUTH is that the US should never have gone into Iraq, and Iran poses no threat to the US, at all.

[Binyam]

 

The TRUTH is, that Iran has been one of the world's leading statet sponsors of terrorism since the Shah was overthrown in 1979 and the Ayatollah took power. Why would they change that now, when things are just getting interesting for them? While I doubt that Iran would supply Al'Qaeda, since it is primarily a Sunni group, I would not doubt in the least that they support groups such as the Mahdi Army, given that they are militant Shi'a groups.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The situation is vastly more complicated than Iran "Supporting" Shi'a groups. The TRUTH is that the US should never have gone into Iraq, and Iran poses no threat to the US, at all.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Really? The US shouldn't have gone into Iraq based on what?? Don't give me that WMD crap, because we all know that is a bunch of garbage, unless, of course this WMD lie conspiracy was the whole world against the US people. What a joke. Or ae you saying that we shouldnt have went to Iraq because we didnt have the support of the UN, namely Russia and France and, to some extent, China?? Wow!! Because those are the same exact countries that made BILLIONS off of the OFF Program, at the same time providing MORE BILIONS in kickbacks to Saddam Hussein and calling far sanctions to be lifted against Iraq.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why?? THEY WERE GETTING RICH OFF OF HIM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SO, tell me again how we did not have justification to invade Iraq and remove Saddam from power. Explain to me how he should have been allowed to continue with his crimes against humanity. Explain to me how he should have been allowed to invade more countries. Explain to me how he should have been allowed to continue to persue WMDs. Explain to me how he should have been allowed to continue violating UN resolution after UN resolution even after 1141, which included:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So please, start explaining your truth

[pault]

 

 

 

Really? The US shouldn't have gone into Iraq based on what??

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Uh, actually, the burden of proof is on those who say we should have gone into Iraq.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Don't give me that WMD crap, because we all know that is a bunch of garbage, unless, of course this WMD lie conspiracy was the whole world against the US people.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WMD lie conspiracy? The United States sold Saddam WMD, taught him how to use them, and didn't object when he used them on his own people, untill it became convenient years later.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What a joke. Or ae you saying that we shouldnt have went to Iraq because we didnt have the support of the UN, namely Russia and France and, to some extent, China?? Wow!! Because those are the same exact countries that made BILLIONS off of the OFF Program, at the same time providing MORE BILIONS in kickbacks to Saddam Hussein and calling far sanctions to be lifted against Iraq.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why?? THEY WERE GETTING RICH OFF OF HIM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SO, tell me again how we did not have justification to invade Iraq and remove Saddam from power. Explain to me how he should have been allowed to continue with his crimes against humanity. Explain to me how he should have been allowed to invade more countries. Explain to me how he should have been allowed to continue to persue WMDs. Explain to me how he should have been allowed to continue violating UN resolution after UN resolution even after 1141, which included:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So please, start explaining your truth

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Once again, the United States supplied Saddam with weapons of mass destruction. Why should we invade him for the purpose of removing these weapons, even after we ignored his use of them against the kurds in '88?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The first gulf war was based on lies. It was not about Saddam killing huge numbers of his own people or anything else other than Saddam not doing exactly what the CIA told him to do.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The idea that human rights violations justified the Iraq invasion is a joke, consider how much safer Iraq was for the average Iraqi under Saddam, and that the US supports Israels cluster bombing of suburban neighborhoods in Lebanon.

[Locke]

Pault, your entire post is pointless because reality is subjective. Maybe in your reality Iran isn't a threat, but in my reality Iran is a threat.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For someone who doubts an absolute reality, you sure seem to be taking a lot of absolute stances in this topic.

[pault]

For someone who doubts an absolute reality, you sure seem to be taking a lot of absolute stances in this topic.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well, to put it bluntly, I don't mix politics and religion.

[warri0r45]

 

For someone who doubts an absolute reality, you sure seem to be taking a lot of absolute stances in this topic.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well, to put it bluntly, I don't mix politics and religion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I hate politicians who do that. But hey, I hate politicians who bring politics into running a governent. All they think of is how to make money for a 'strong economy' just so they don't upset the voters by doing anything drastic i.e. solving the water crisis (in my country, anyway).