All of the talk about bombing Iran to keep them from getting nukes and threatening the 'world' distracts from our own country's abandonment of the international non-proliferation agreement as Bush is positioned to build more nuclear weapons and resume testing.
The Bush regime doesn't care about any of that. They've gone so long without anyone in a position to hold them accountable that the neo-zombies can't resist wagging their finger at Iran for testing missiles. The State Dept. charged Iran's testing of a new missile this week, coupled with what they say is Iran's effort to develop nuclear weapons, shows the country has taken a more aggressive military stance in the region.
'It demonstrates that Iran has a very active and aggressive military programme under way,' US State Department deputy spokesman Adam Ereli said
Never mind that this year, in a Senate committee hearing, our Intelligence director Negroponte admitted the missiles were for the defense of Iran's borders from foreign invasion.
Never mind that we're set to explode a '
bunker-busting' bomb in the Nevada desert in June. Never mind that America is occupying two nations we don't have any purchase on, save the threat of our military forces . . .
Iran said last week that progress on nuclear proliferation was doomed by Bush's new nukes. Iranian Minister
Mottaki said the progress was "doomed because one single state party" abandoned the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty.
"New nuclear weapons were built and new doctrines were devised to lower" the threshold to their use, Mottaki said in obvious reference to Bush's obstinacy. Iran is correct. The U.S. push to develop more nuclear weapons, and Bush's abrogation of the treaty makes all of this action against Iran, demanded by the U.S., bizarre and self-serving.
Jimmy Carter, no fan of Iran, called attention to the Bush regime's nuclear ambitions in a comprehensive article. "The United States is the major culprit in this erosion of the NPT." he wrote. "While claiming to be protecting the world from proliferation threats in Iraq, Libya, Iran and North Korea, American leaders not only have abandoned existing treaty restraints but also have asserted plans to test and develop new weapons, including antiballistic missiles, the earth-penetrating "bunker buster" and perhaps some new "small" bombs. They also have abandoned past pledges and now threaten first use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states."
"We've seen that certain countries do not feel committed to attaining the objectives of the NPT," designed primarily to stop the spread of nuclear weapons to countries that don't already have them, Carter said.
In a White House document created in April 2000, "The United States of America Meeting its Commitment to Article VI of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons," the administration stated that, "as the United States reduces the numbers of its nuclear weapons, it is also transforming the means to build them." The initiative directed the military to prepare contingency plans to use nuclear weapons against at least seven countries, and to build new, smaller nuclear weapons for use in certain battlefield situations.
The
report says the Pentagon needs to be prepared to use nuclear weapons against China, Russia, Iraq, North Korea, Syria, Iran and Libya. It says the weapons could be used in three types of situations: against targets able to withstand non-nuclear attack, in retaliation for attack with nuclear biological or chemical weapons, or in the event of ‘surprising military developments.'
As reported by the World Policy Institute, the
National Institute for Public Policy's, January 2001 report on the "rationale and requirements" for U.S. nuclear forces, was used as the model for the Bush administration's Nuclear Posture Review, which advocated an expansion of the U.S. nuclear "hit list" and the development of a new generation of "usable," lower-yield nuclear weapons.
Three members of the study group that produced the NIPP report were National Security Council members Stephen Hadley, Robert Joseph (Undersecretary of State), and Stephen Cambone (now serving as Pentagon Intelligence director).
Stephen Hadley,
co-wrote a National institute for Public Policy paper portraying a nuclear bunker-buster bomb as an ideal weapon against the nuclear, chemical or biological weapons stockpiles of rouge nations such as Iraq. "Under certain circumstances," the report said, "very severe nuclear threats may be needed to deter any of these potential adversaries."
Mohammed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said (in
2002) that disarmament was hampered by countries holding on to their nuclear doctrines, including the U.S. Nuclear Posture Review, which envisions the use nuclear weapons both against non-nuclear states and preemptively against new threats from terrorists and rogue states.
The lack of progress in nuclear disarmament “can be traced in general to the continuing reliance on the doctrine of nuclear deterrence and the lack of an overall disarmament strategy,” ElBaradei said. Also that: “Some nuclear weapon states have reversed direction, by stressing the continuing value of nuclear weapons in defense of national security interests, including discussions of the feasibility of developing new types of nuclear weapons, and scenarios for the use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapon states.”
Perhaps that's why the U.N. Nuke chief stressed yesterday that Iran's nuclear program is "
not an imminent threat. There is no military solution to this situation," the ElBaradei said. "It's inconceivable. The only durable solution is a negotiated solution."
"It's inconceivable", the director-general of the IAEA said. Hope so.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
who apparently said nothing to Saddam about his nuclear weapons program or his use of chemical weapons. http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/ 
