58 votes

New Anti-War Video: A Briefing On Iran's Nuclear Program

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

All I can Say is

PNAC

skippy

It would be

helpful if Ron Paul had upgraded his Cold War comparisons to modern time. RP likes to give us two rationales (which we parrot) 1) USA managed to live with USSR without a war; 2) Iranian history was rational peaceful one.

1) It makes sense to remind that today CIA pays $6B/yr to Pakistan to keep somewhat secular government there. CIA does not give a penny to India's current socialist government or to communist N. Korea. CIA has no access to Iranian government.

2) Iranian mullahs appoint presidential cabinet positions. The same mullahs had armed their own children with Koran to march against Iraqi army (Saddam did not flinch and shot them at will. UN did not produce a peep.)

You may trust mullahs, but others have their own level of safety.

" America buys war like

" America buys war like children gobble candy." Henry Kissinger.

Bob Marshall

This video conveniently leaves out some important information.

Yes, Iran is not in violation of the NPT, but it has made a few moves which can be a reasonable cause for some concern.

In 2003, Iran agreed to "declare any new nuclear facility from the moment building is authorized.

Still, it was only after years of work that Iran declared the 3,000-centrifuge Fordow site near Qom in September 2009. IAEA inspectors found it in “an advanced state of construction.” That prompted the IAEA Board of Governors, in a rare direct censure, to vote 26 to 3 against Iran in November."
(reference link: http://tinyurl.com/3722thk)

I think that that information is important to factor in when making a decision about Iran. We should consider any propaganda that conveniently leaves out pertinent information as suspect. Let's not stoop to the MSM's level.

That all being said, we still have no business going to war with Iran, that is, unless we really want them to start selling oil for dollars again, just like we did with like Iraq and Libya.

PS. Please kindly note the sarcasm in that last line.

There is nothing in that

There is nothing in that article to cast doubt upon the intentions of Iran's nuclear program. Instead, what it appears to be (as usual) is that the IAEA is doing the US's bidding.

"Technically, Iran was not required to declare that Natanz site until six months before nuclear material was introduced."
THEN
"it was only after years of work that Iran declared the 3,000-centrifuge Fordow site near Qom in September 2009. IAEA inspectors found it in “an advanced state of construction.” "
WHICH
"prompted the IAEA Board of Governors, in a rare direct censure, to vote 26 to 3 against Iran in November."

I'm not savvy on the legal aspects here, but it appears to be nonsense if it was still under construction. They had to declare is 6months prior to introducing nuclear material.

Sounds more like a hit piece than journalism.

Here's a good clip of Hossein Mousavian discussing the P5+1 negotiations. He's been integral to numerous negotiations between the west and Iran. 9min but the full version is interesting.

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/clip/4015590

Don't get me wrong,

I'm not in favor of attacking Iran in any way shape or form unless they strike at us first. We don't have the right to tell other countries what they can and can not do with their own stuff, although we act like we do all the time.

My point was that the video left out some information that I believed to be pertinent to making an informed decision on the topic. That doesn't mean that info will change the outcome of the decision.

The MSM paints its story's as black and white all to often when there is really a lot of gray in the mix. This video seemed to simplify the situation too much which made it seem like there was no question as to what was going on. In reality, I'm sure the situation is much more complicated than any of us ever know.

I trust Ron Paul because he has a track record of giving info to me straight and not sugar coating it to get me to side with him. This video seemed a bit sugar coated is all.

I get where you're coming from.

But I think the video was meant to be quick primer.. to get you thinking outside of the established narrative and not as a reference or guide to Western/Iranian relations.

Your point is well taken though - "Nullius in verba."
(Even if it is on the DP.)

Edmnd is right: The dispute

Edmnd is right: The dispute about the "undeclared" facility is that according to the agreement signed by the NPT they are required to declare a facility 6 to the IAEA 6 months before introducing nuclear material. Sometime in the 90s the IAEA updated the policy to say member states need to declare facilities in the planning stage before even beginning building. This was never agreed to by Iran... and its hard to defend unilateral modifications to a treaty.

So this "infringement" is pretty dubious. They did in fact declare six months before, per the requirements under the treaty.

They also state as their rationale that Israel & the USA are using the IAEA to gain intelligence about even it's non-nuclear military capacity... arguably making it complicit in aiding their military intentions against Iran. Also hard to argue against when you consider stuxnet, the scientist assassinations, etc.

I understand I didn't cover everything in this vid. It's extremely difficult to take a very complex topic & strip it down to it's most fundamental issues- to keep it to 6 minutes. For a little more nuance check out the article I wrote to accompany the vid:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Qa1kUgGYMdYMltx9eYzhJlYW...

First of all,

Hats off to you for tackling a hard topic and doing a very good job of it in only a few minutes. That's no easy task.

2nd. Thanks for the added info. I think we are all in agreement as to the nature of the situation, and the argument that the IAEA cant change the terms after the fact is spot on.

I know you can't include everything in the video so take this with a very large grain of salt. It would have been very helpful if the video had referenced and debunked the "infringement" argument, as you just did in your post, as it is one of the Neocon's core reasons for validating potential war with Iran.

I never thought it was a valid argument for war to begin with, but with so much rhetoric and propaganda going around, I think we need to go the extra mile with making sure our info is above the board.

Keep up the great work!!!

PS. You have officially secured my upvote for the video. =)

Don't let

Don't let facts get in the way of the global criminal Jewish network.

Luke 3:38
Isaiah 43:3-5

Some days..

I have such pity for the loss of common sense and reason in our society.

bump

to read later

Jackson County Georgia

War is an instrument entirely inefficient toward redressing wrong; and multiplies, instead of indemnifying losses.
Thomas Jefferson