the coming war of aggression on iran
the drumbeat is pounding in the media for war against iran. as with most drives to war, it is the brainchild of the most evil and unscrupulous of sociopathic monsters as they campaign against civilization in search of power and wealth for the few at the enormous cost of the many. well, sorry guys, but this just doesn't hold water - not that it has to to convince the wayward majority of undereducated americans.
1) iran is an NPT signatory. that means that they, unlike india, pakistan and israel - all of which have nuclear ties to the united states, have signed an international treaty promising not to pursue a nuclear weapons program. they have the right, under article 4 of that treaty, to use nuclear technologies for peaceful purposes. the group entrusted to inspect the activities of NPT signatories, the IAEA, insists that iran is compliant with all such requirements; a fact confirmed and reconfirmed by u.s. intelligence reports.
2) the u.s and israeli claims that the new enrichment facility in Qom is "secret" are lies. the site has, in fact, been under surveillance by u.s. spies for years and was voluntarily reported by iran to the IAEA ahead even, of the requirements of the NPT.
3) iran is a non-aggressive country. iran has not attacked any countries in centuries, unlike its main two protagonists, the united states (attacked afganistan in 2001 and iraq in 2003) and israel (attacked lebanon 2007 in and syria in 2003) - two of the most openly aggressive governments in the world.
4) for the nth time, ahmadinejad never said anything about israel being "wiped off the map". that was nothing but devious anti-iranian propaganda. here's the actual quote: "Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad." in english: "The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time". i'm obviously no fan of "regime change" in the way that governments use it, because it usually means that civilians will be killed en masse, but is it any different than what the u.s. and israeli governments have been advocating for years with regard to iran? irony, anyone? at least the quote is from the head of a non-aggressive state directed toward a far more belligerent one.
5) it's a great idea having governments disarmed in every sense and certainly in the nuclear one, but why focus on iran when the only government in history to ever actually use nuclear weapons against civilian populations, twice(!) is still in control of the world's largest nuclear weapons arsenal? while we're at it, why not have the only country in the middle east possessing nuclear weapons sign the NPT?
6) it's almost crazy for iran NOT to be pursuing a nuclear weapons program. imagine if canada and mexico had been invaded and occupied by the most aggressive government on the planet with the world's largest nuclear arsenal and it was threatening to invade the united states. what would be the reaction here? would it be a good idea to have some nukes to try to deter such an attack? then imagine the feeling in iran with the u.s. occupying both afganistan on one side and iraq on the other, and actively threatening to bomb iran.
7) any military action against iran and especially war, will undoubtedly result in the deaths of many iranian civilians. this is outright mass murder. committing actions that will knowingly result in the deaths of innocent people is murder. would those advocating war with iran also condone the bombing of civilians in the united states because of the actions of the u.s. government? why not? iranian civilians are no different than u.s. civilians- they have no control over what the government they are subjected to does and are just trying to live their lives as best they can from day to day. why murder them?
the arguments for war on iran are completely bogus and their proponents outrageous in their willingness to use hollow propaganda and obvious lies to stump for the financing through theft of their murderous activities. don't get suckered by the state-media's constant table-pounding for war. war is the health of the state and the state is a vicious cancer upon civilization.
1) iran is an NPT signatory. that means that they, unlike india, pakistan and israel - all of which have nuclear ties to the united states, have signed an international treaty promising not to pursue a nuclear weapons program. they have the right, under article 4 of that treaty, to use nuclear technologies for peaceful purposes. the group entrusted to inspect the activities of NPT signatories, the IAEA, insists that iran is compliant with all such requirements; a fact confirmed and reconfirmed by u.s. intelligence reports.
2) the u.s and israeli claims that the new enrichment facility in Qom is "secret" are lies. the site has, in fact, been under surveillance by u.s. spies for years and was voluntarily reported by iran to the IAEA ahead even, of the requirements of the NPT.
3) iran is a non-aggressive country. iran has not attacked any countries in centuries, unlike its main two protagonists, the united states (attacked afganistan in 2001 and iraq in 2003) and israel (attacked lebanon 2007 in and syria in 2003) - two of the most openly aggressive governments in the world.
4) for the nth time, ahmadinejad never said anything about israel being "wiped off the map". that was nothing but devious anti-iranian propaganda. here's the actual quote: "Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad." in english: "The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time". i'm obviously no fan of "regime change" in the way that governments use it, because it usually means that civilians will be killed en masse, but is it any different than what the u.s. and israeli governments have been advocating for years with regard to iran? irony, anyone? at least the quote is from the head of a non-aggressive state directed toward a far more belligerent one.
5) it's a great idea having governments disarmed in every sense and certainly in the nuclear one, but why focus on iran when the only government in history to ever actually use nuclear weapons against civilian populations, twice(!) is still in control of the world's largest nuclear weapons arsenal? while we're at it, why not have the only country in the middle east possessing nuclear weapons sign the NPT?
6) it's almost crazy for iran NOT to be pursuing a nuclear weapons program. imagine if canada and mexico had been invaded and occupied by the most aggressive government on the planet with the world's largest nuclear arsenal and it was threatening to invade the united states. what would be the reaction here? would it be a good idea to have some nukes to try to deter such an attack? then imagine the feeling in iran with the u.s. occupying both afganistan on one side and iraq on the other, and actively threatening to bomb iran.
7) any military action against iran and especially war, will undoubtedly result in the deaths of many iranian civilians. this is outright mass murder. committing actions that will knowingly result in the deaths of innocent people is murder. would those advocating war with iran also condone the bombing of civilians in the united states because of the actions of the u.s. government? why not? iranian civilians are no different than u.s. civilians- they have no control over what the government they are subjected to does and are just trying to live their lives as best they can from day to day. why murder them?
the arguments for war on iran are completely bogus and their proponents outrageous in their willingness to use hollow propaganda and obvious lies to stump for the financing through theft of their murderous activities. don't get suckered by the state-media's constant table-pounding for war. war is the health of the state and the state is a vicious cancer upon civilization.
Comments