[lbo-talk] Hersh on Bush & Iran

Josh Narins josh at narins.net
Tue Apr 11 12:10:22 PDT 2006



> Josh Narins wrote:
>
> > The way I see it, and I think Dr. Lewis is far too soft on the
> > warmongers, is that there is not one shred of physical evidence on
> > Earththat the Iranians are working towards a nuclear weapons
> > program.
>
> Why Iran is unwilling to accept the compromise solution offered by Russia and China?

Are you talking about the plan described here?

Reuter's from today: http://tinyurl.com/qxxt5

Where Russia lets Iran enrich uranium at a site in Russia?

Iran is allowed to not only enrich uranium, but study nuclear matters, by the terms of the NPT.

It had signed additional protocols to the NPT, which it abided by, which allowed for extra inspections.

The US forced the issue to the Security Council. Iran had voted on, and agreed to, months before, in a public way, the idea that if they were brought to the Security Council in order to appease America, they would stop working with the inspectors.

Now, for the third time (1998 Iraq, 2003 Iraq, 2006 Iran) the US has prevented inspections from proceeding.

Bush never thanked the UN, the IAEA, or the inspectors for so thoroughly disarming Iraq, did he? Yes, I know, Lt Gen Hussayn Khamel (re-spelled for the Duelfer report from the more common Hussein Kamel) was instrumental in revealing the WMD programs that Saddam hadn't destroyed after the first Gulf War, even as he _had_ destroyed 100% of the actual weapons.

The world would be a terrible, horrifying place now if the UN had failed, and some Iraqi General, or Saddam himself, had authorized a chemical weapon attack on Americans.

It would have been the excuse the Bush warmongers needed to launch a tactical nuke.

They just need an excuse.

Maybe they'll get one with Iran.

I'm still not happy with the Hersh peice.



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list