Nuclear China Good, Nuclear Iran Bad?
Paul –
What is with the Republican and conservative rant? You would make a lot of sense if you included the Democrats. They are in it together. If you have not caught on by reading many good articles on this site, then here it is: ISRAEL and OIL, that is why we are in Iraq.
If you think that the Democrats are saints and did not take part in the invasion and lies then, my dear fellow, you’re out to lunch! …
Paul Craig Roberts replies:
The Democrats fell for the lies, but they did not manufacture them; Dems are not running the show.
I agree they are scared of the Israeli lobby, just like everyone else.
Your explanation of the gross incompetence and hubris of this administration is excellent. I am a lifelong conservative who has decided he can never vote Republican again, unless and until the idiot branch of the party is expunged from our ranks.
Paul Craig Roberts replies:
So many Republicans have told me this that I don’t see how Bush got reelected.
Would you care to comment on "Q&A: Iran’s nuclear standoff"?
This seems to be at variance with what you have written in the past in a number of ways (unless I have misunderstood what you have written).
It states "Iran’s secrecy breached the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)," whereas I thought you wrote that they were guilty only of technical breaches of safeguards agreements.
Under "What are the likely consequences of Iran’s resumption of uranium processing?" they say that the "The IAEA could then call on the Security Council to tell Iran to stop enriching or face sanctions." I thought this would imply the IAEA breaking it own rules.
A lot of answers also seem very incomplete for example:
Q: If it is legal to enrich uranium for fuel, why should Iran not do so?
A: Iran says that it should be allowed to, under inspection.
Wouldn’t "yes" be a more precise answer?
If you do think their page is wrong, you could try pointing this out to the BBC. They are far more likely to pay attention to someone with your credentials than me.
Gordon Prather replies:
Much of what the neo-crazies and their media sycophants (at NYT, WashTimes,WashPost, Reuters, UPI, AP, BBC, whatever) tell you is untrue. And deliberately so. They assume you will never find them out. But you can. Come to Antiwar.com and read my columns, among others. We provide direct quotes and links to primary source documents. If you don’t believe I have quoted the NPT, the IAEA Statute, the Final Report of the 6th NPT RevCon, etc., etc., accurately, go read it, yourself.
Justin,
You wrote,
"At every turn, just when it seemed they would be apprehended, fate – or whomever – intervened, obstructing the normal means of interception and keeping the conspiracy on track. It’s almost as if they traveled in a security bubble, protected by – what? By whom?"
Okay, so your position now (and I commend you for revising your opinions on 9/11 and keeping an open mind) is that:
1) Al-Qaeda did it, but
2) They couldn’t have done it without help from powerful persons in high places within the U.S. Don’t you see what this means? It means that al-Qaeda DIDN’T DO IT because they COULDN’T do it without the inside help. The true perps, by your own logic, are the powerful persons in high places within the U.S. who allowed it to happen – because they wanted it to happen. So, al-Qaeda isn’t the ultimately guilty party, even on the assumption that AQ did it.
AQ is the patsy, even if they actually did the deed.
And by the way, you do know, don’t you, that the alleged Mohammed Atta received $100K from a high official of the Pakistani ISI just before the attack? And you do know that the ISI deals with AQ on behalf of the CIA?
I’m looking forward to your next article on all this.
Since I put up the challenge towards the visitors of this site to express their views on the war in Iraq and supporting the troops, I have received countless e-mails and want to thank all who have responded. As you can see, I will respond to all and answer them as best as I can. I am not looking for a pat on the back, my peers who ride in the Humvees on missions deserve more credit than me. They put on the gear and put their lives in jeopardy every time they go out. We just lost two soldiers from New York recently. In my opinion, they died serving their country and doing their job. Anyone who disagrees can e-mail me….
Again, I look forward to your input and will answer any and all e-mails, pro or con. I am a soldier serving in Baghdad and proud of my guys and gals here. They have served with honor and dignity. I hope you will agree.
~ Mike Tanner, MikeTanner@aol.com
Angry Mothers and Trembling Grizzlies
I am an 82-year-old woman whose wonderful young husband and beloved brother both lost their lives in W.W.II. Later both of my sons served in Vietnam, a very different kind of war, one not unlike the present bloody misguided adventure of the current political administration.
One of my sons suffered such psychological trauma from his war experiences that he has never been a really totally functional human being. The other shares my utter contempt for the perpetrators of this barbaric attack on an already impoverished and abused little country that never presented a real threat to this, the most powerful nation in the world with its obscene arsenal of deadly weapons.
There is one thing those who have never experienced a wartime loss should understand: families never, ever really recover from their losses. It has been over sixty years now since I learned my husband and brother were never coming home and there is still never a day that goes by that I don’t think about what might have been. And my son’s lifelong struggle just trying to deal with post-Vietnam traumas and anxieties has been a constant worry and concern for years. War has the most hellish consequences.
It is painful beyond words to lose a loved one in a just war but the suffering experienced by those who know their loss is due to the deceit, greed, insensitivity and ineptitude of people in positions of power must be beyond comprehension.
~ Joanna Garrett
