Exactly Where Is Iran Breaking The Law?

Well, actually, it's more than Bush that is worried. The UN security council voted to demand that Iran stop enriching uranium, or something. Way more mean than it ever was to Saddam while he was thumbing his nose at them and impoverishing his people.

But I agree. It is hard to be judgemental of other countries' attempts to obtain nuclear weapons when the US is sitting on a few million.

BERLIN (Reuters) - The head of the United Nations' nuclear watchdog called on the United States Tuesday to set an example to the rest of the world by cutting its nuclear arsenal and halting research programs.

"The U.S. government demands that other nations not possess nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, it is arming itself," Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, told Germany's Stern weekly.

Criticizing President Bush's plan for a national missile defense shield, he said: "Then a small number of privileged countries will be under a nuclear protective shield, with the rest of the world outside."

"In truth there are no good or bad nuclear weapons. If we do not stop applying double standards we will end up with more nuclear weapons. We are at a turning point," ElBaradei told Stern in the interview released ahead of publication.

Here's an idea...Lets READ the treaty and see what they are violating...

http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/npt/text/npt2.htm

Here is a little more info on the treaty itself...

http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/npt/

US considers use of nuclear weapons against Iran Sat Apr 8, 2:24 AM ET



WASHINGTON (AFP) - The administration of President George W. Bush is planning a massive bombing campaign against Iran, including use of bunker-buster nuclear bombs to destroy a key Iranian suspected nuclear weapons facility, The New Yorker magazine has reported in its April 17 issue.

The article by investigative journalist Seymour Hersh said that Bush and others in the White House have come to view Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a potential Adolf Hitler.

"That's the name they're using," the report quoted a former senior intelligence official as saying.

A senior unnamed Pentagon adviser is quoted in the article as saying that "this White House believes that the only way to solve the problem is to change the power structure in Iran, and that means war."

The former intelligence officials depicts planning as "enormous," "hectic" and "operational," Hersh writes.

One former defense official said the military planning was premised on a belief that "a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government," The New Yorker pointed out.

In recent weeks, the president has quietly initiated a series of talks on plans for Iran with a few key senators and members of the House of Representatives, including at least one Democrat, the report said.

One of the options under consideration involves the possible use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, to insure the destruction of Iran's main centrifuge plant at Natanz, Hersh writes.

But the former senior intelligence official said the attention given to the nuclear option has created serious misgivings inside the military, and some officers have talked about resigning after an attempt to remove the nuclear option from the evolving war plans in Iran failed, according to the report.

"There are very strong sentiments within the military against brandishing nuclear weapons against other countries," the magazine quotes the Pentagon adviser as saying.

The adviser warned that bombing Iran could provoke "a chain reaction" of attacks on American facilities and citizens throughout the world and might also reignite Hezbollah.

"If we go, the southern half of Iraq will light up like a candle," the adviser is quoted as telling The New Yorker.

If the U. S. uses a pre-emptive nuclear strike on Iran, this gives the green light to any country on the planet with the technology to follow suit. And the question Washington has to ask is, if Iran is bombed, what treaty obligations do other countries in the world have to assist in its defense? Welcome to a potential WWIII, courtesy of this Administration.

Bushie, Cheney, Rummy and the rest of the PNAC madmen need to be charged with crimes against humanity. Blair too.

Where did the New Yorker get this info?

Who is its source?
What are the credentials of the source?

Seymour Myron (Sy) Hersh (born April 8, 1937) is an American investigative journalist and author based in New York City. He is a regular contributor to The New Yorker on military and security matters. His work first gained worldwide recognition in 1969 for exposing the My Lai massacre and its cover-up during the Vietnam War, for which he received the 1970 Pulitzer Prize for International Reporting. His 2004 reports on the US Military's treatment of detainees at Abu Ghraib prison gained much attention.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seymour_Hersh

----

Investigative journalist Seymour Hersh spills the secrets of the Iraq quagmire and the war on terror

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/10/11_hersh.shtml

mysteryman, the article I posted answers your questions. Guess you were to lazy to read it. Seymour Hersh has excellent credentials and has exposed Bushie every step of the way. Also the PNAC white paper makes it very clear the plan is to greatly escalate the war. These American war criminals must be made to answer for their war crimes, their unjust and unneeded war as one former American CIC has rightly called it.

Who are the people that Seymour Hersh is quoting?
The report says a "former senior intelligence official" and "senior unnamed Pentagon adviser".

He doesnt give one name,nor does he credit his sources at all.

So,who are his sources?
Where do they get his info?

Are any of his "sources" from the current administration?

Sandy Berger,Clintons former National Security Advisor,is also a former senior intelligence official,so unless Hersh can prove that these people are from the current admin,it makes the report suspect.

But,even if its true,so what?
The Pentagon has plans to use nukes against Canada also.
They have plans for warfare against every country on earth,and they are always being updated.
If you were the expert you like to think you are,you would know that.

mysteryman, do you support bombing Iran?

No,I dont.
Not until and unless they use nukes against us or our allies.
Then we turn their whole country into a parking lot.

But,that does not change the fact that the Pentagon has war plans for every country on earth.
Those plans are always being updated,but the odds of them ever being implemented are slim to none.

You make it sound like its a new idea,when you know it isnt.

mysteryman, hahaha. You make it sound like the threat of Bushie bombing Iran is equal to a plan to bomb Canada. The world is taking the threat more seriously. John McCain has said that bombing Iran would lead to Armageddon. He says try sanctions first and if sanctions dont work then try Armageddon.

Hi blueflame1,

Isn't this about Israel's paranoia? Don't they want every country surrounding them or close to them to disarm? Why does Israel get to have WMD's? Why are they so special?

What about Pakistan? They have WMD's. I suppose as long as they are a good little puppet regime and do what the US says, they are safe. Maybe Iran is feeling a little helpless. That hardly justifies them being blasted like Iraq. They have cooperated fully.

I agree with you, the American war criminals must be made to answer for their crimes. This must stop NOW. Yeah, killing one is murder, killing thousands is patriotic.

Why doesn't the damn US practice what they preach. They don't seem to have any qualms about arming themselves. Bullies.

We are responding to a possible threat Iran may pose more than to a law or treaty violation. If someone poses a threat to my life, then I will do something about it whether they are breaking the law or not.

I don't understand the logic of this administration and it's supporters.
"Iran should not have nuclear capabilities because we are afraid they will wipe Israel off the map....so, we will prevent such a disaster by turning them into the proverbial parking lot with our own nuclear arsenol."

I mean, nukes are either wrong or they are not.
I sure hope they use the "smart" ones....you know, like the bombs in Iraq--the ones that avoid hitting innocent women and children.

Allow me to clear this up for you. As long as anyone has nukes or bioweapons, the world is living on borrowed time. However, worldwide disarmament is not an easy thing to accomplish. Still, desiring to avoid a major WMD calamity, we are trying at least to keep nukes out of the hands of a few regimes that are considered unusually large risks to cause major problems should they acquire them. And, no, not all regimes are equally risky. Only a fool would see France, China, the US, Russia, England, etc. as presenting the same degree of risk as Iraq under Saddam Hussein. At least the former tend usually to pursue somewhat risk averse policies.

ask someone from Hiroshima....

Not quite fair. The bomb was used at the moment of its creation and never again in the 60 years since. Sounds good, though. Your apparent point, that the US is no more to be trusted with the bomb than Saddam Hussein, is baloney.