Proof of Iranian Nuclear Weapons Program Demanded in US Congress
US secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice was quizzed yesterday over the failure by the current US administration to present any form of solid evidence over Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program.
During the questioning one Republican congressman, Ron Paul told the hearing "Unproven charges against Iran's nuclear intentions are eerily reminiscent of the false charges made against Iraq."
Paul went on to say "This sounds like Iraq, where accusations came first and proof was supposed to come later – only that proof never came because the accusations turned out to be false."
He was just impeached for lying in court. And yet we have a president who's been responsible for tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of civilian deaths. And he's still there.
"This sounds like Iraq, where accusations came first and proof was supposed to come later – only that proof never came because the accusations turned out to be false."
Why is it USA still dictates what goes around the World?? Why is it, once someone starts bashing USA, they are terrorists!! How is it, Americans despite knowing all this, still wants to send more troops to Iraq, or in this matter War with Iran??
I bet you this will be bamboozled and USA will bomb Iran to please Israel.
In kind, why is it that America gets criticized for not doing enough in some situations (particularly when it comes to "humanitarian" efforts)?
If America is supposed to intervene and make peace in Sudan, how's that different from Iraq?
But I digress... all that has nothing to do with potential Iranian nuclear weapons hehe. Tough to say what's going on in Iran. Regardless, it's awefully suspicious that Iran kicked out the international inspectors.
It's american leaders not all the american people the reason could be as Michael Parenti said . "The enormous gap between what US leaders do in the world and what Americans think their leaders are doing is one of the great propaganda accomplishments of the dominate political mythology."
Be careful, you impeach Bush you get Cheney... think my friend.. as part of this planet.. choose the lesser of 2 evils. Choose a naive President over a tactical, cunning mastermind politician that is Dick Cheney who'd have Karl Rove advising. You impeach now and the shit will hit 2 fans.
But I agree 100%, he has done a disservice to his nation, region and world. It is my limited understanding of the constitution which is symbolically held together by a thread is that if you cannot do the will of the people or uphold the constitution you are no longer fit to serve.
I seriously doubt any debate, in a democratic nation will be allowed and the lies will continue to serve as fact / truth and build up into a pre-war climax... then another propaganda reel of the initial 'shock and awe' attack with gun trails, bombs, night vision and loud bangs.
Well I'm glad personally I am against the war even before it's begun. I supported the Iraq invasion in 2003, only because I actually believed Generals and the UN evidence... but somehow when I saw an animation of what a biolab might look like on train tracks (instead of a real thing)...kind set of the common sense alarm.
"If America is supposed to intervene and make peace in Sudan, how's that different from Iraq?"
You said it. One is to make peace, with your right hand. Second is to make War with your left. Unfortunately, USA has managed to get itself, deep to it's eye balls, with making wars rather than peace.
@ Hugo: ""The enormous gap between what US leaders do in the world and what Americans think their leaders are doing is one of the great propaganda accomplishments of the dominate political mythology."
Con me once shame on you, con me twice shame on me. Me = _ _ _.
Let's face it, while our nations are being faced by defecits, abysmal welfare infrastructures, crime and corruption on levels ranging from the business aristocracy to the lowliest cop, we got better things to do.
[@bobjones] If we're sending troops to another nation, it ain't for humanitarian aid. If we're in Iraq, it's not pro bono and it's not for the tan. We're up to no-good. Remember that bobjones.
I agree that if America is sending troops somewhere, it's because the outcome is deemed beneficial to America. I believe the same is true for all nations who send troops, i.e., there's an element of selfishness in the motivation. Even those who only send troops to provide "humanitarian aide" are probably doing so because it will give them more influence throughout the world, give them more bargaining power, etc.
I do believe that Americans -- and American leaders -- want peace in the middle east, for both humanitarian and "selfish" reasons (among others).
I've not seen any humanitarian work done by any unilater government action. It's always been because:
* it's beneficial * PR job/election time/damage control on prior faux pas * dragged in by a consortium (eg UN) of which it was a member * it's beneficial (did I memtion that already?)
Altruism is for the highminded/misguided/enlightented(take your pick) *individual*. It's when you have nothing to gain out of it.
Largest Oil source belonging to a NON-nuclear states is hardly 'nothing'.
