akenaton, in his post of 17 Feb 06 - 07:06 PM, quotes from an article, "The Next War: Crossing the Rubicon" by John Pilger. In which there are rather a large number of highly charged statements that one could call to task on the grounds of accuracy, objectivity and truth. But no-one has ever accused Mr. Pilger of being objective, he has an axe to grind and articles and books to sell. Mr. Pilger is an "investigative" journalist with an agenda of his own, who declines to look at any subject from any other perspective than the one he selects in the hope that it will get him noticed and be financially rewarding. If, on the strength of this quoted passage, Akenaton wishes to purchase anything written by Mr.Pilger, then more fool him. It would however be interesting to find out when the article was written.

To Mr. Pilger I would make the following comments with regard to his article:

- To the accusation of having "subverted the laws of the civilized world". I would ask what laws have been subverted?
- Blair "lied and lied". I would point out to Mr.Pilger that a number of Inquiries on the subject have concluded otherwise.

Let's look at the "Pilger" perspective:
- Britain exported terrorism to Iraq? - ridiculous proposition, if any here doubt that, let them go and ask any who suffered under Saddam's regime.
- "scandalously reneged on Britain's most sacred international obligations". Now what would those be? Mr. Pilger does not bother to elaborate upon them. But it does rather beg a question that I would like the 'Pilger' take on. Do "Britain's most sacred international obligations" take precedence over the UK Government's obligation and responsibilities to the United Kingdom - I rather think not, Mr. Pilger.
- "forsaken diplomacy", Mr. Pilger charges Blair with having done so in respect to Iraq. And ridicules Mr. Blair for stating that Iran has "forsaken diplomacy". Taking a look at the track record with regard to Iraq, Iraq would have appeared to reneged on all it agreed to do at Safwan and failed to co-operate when given a final chance to do so. Mr Blair kept the diplomatic avenue open for as long as it could be kept open. Ultimately the issue had to be resolved without doubt and that required intervention by armed forces. Mr. Pilger if diplomacy was forsaken it was forsaken at the last resort. Now take a look at the charge of having "forsaken diplomacy" levelled against Iran. In the time that this has been in the public eye, how many times has Iran walked away from, or refused, talks. How many offers have been made to Iran in order that this issue can be settled, how many offers or counter-proposals have been made by Iran.   

PILGER: "Like the invasion of Iraq, an attack on Iran has a secret agenda that has nothing to do with the Tehran regime's imaginary weapons of mass destruction." This is Pilger opinion presented as though it were fact. What was the "secret agenda" in Iraq John? What is the "secret agenda" in Iran? Pilger introduces the lie that maybe Washington believes that Iran has weapons of mass destruction, whereas the whole row is centred upon whether or not Iran is working towards acquiring nuclear weapons, and those concerns have been voiced world-wide. The IAEA came to it's own conclusions Mr. Pilger without coercion from anyone, because Iran failed to comply with its obligations under the terms of the nuclear NPT (Mr. Pilger ignores that for some reason). Oh yes the attack on Iraq in 1991, lets see, no mention of Iraq having invaded Kuwait, no mention of Iraq threatening to invade Saudi Arabia - I suppose Mr. Pilger as an honest, objective reporter, thought that those factors were unimportant.

The undoubted fact reported by Mr. Pilger in this article is that, "Iran offers no "nuclear threat.", well it doesn't at present Mr. Pilger and that is a situation that most want see remain the case. It is widely believed by many closely involved that the Iranian view is markedly different.

The head of the IAEA, Mohamed ElBaradei, has repeatedly said his inspectors have found nothing to support American and Israeli claims. Apart from clear evidence that for the last eighteen years Iran has conducted work on it's nuclear programme in secret in contravention of the terms and conditions of the nuclear NPT to which Iran is a signatory. So Mr. Pilger your statement that Iran "has complied with its obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty" is uttter nonsense at least and a deliberate misrepresentation at worst.

On inspections Mr. Pilger, you specifically mention the US and Israel. Come on John, let's not be shy, are inspectors allowed to "go anywhere and see anything" in China? North Korea? Russia? France? United Kingdom? India? Pakistan? - Somehow don't think so John.

Not wishing to point out the obvious Mr. Pilger but Israel refuses to recognise the nuclear NPT because it, unlike Iran, is not a signatory. Could Mr. Pilger explain why anyone should recognise and abide by an agreement that they themselves have not agreed to?

According to Mr. Pilger Israel has "between 200 and 500 thermonuclear weapons targeted at Iran and other Middle Eastern states" Really John!!! This you know for fact? Personally I do not believe what Mr. Pilger says. I believe what most believe, that it is almost certain that Israel has a nuclear weapons capability, incidently born from a peaceful nuclear industry. As to the extent of Israel's arsenal and means of delivering those weapons, I can only guess - exactly as Mr. Pilger can only guess. Do not report your opinions as fact Mr. Pilger, because facts they are not.

The "voluntary confidence-building measures" that Iran agreed to came about because Iran got caught out. Its eighteen year old secretive programme of development was exposed to the IAEA and the world. Iran then agreed to put seals on equipment and facilities it should never have had if Iran had been complying with the terms and conditions of the nuclear NPT as Mr. Pilger says they were - You were wrong John.

The US and Britain menaced Iran for fifty years? - Hardly John, unless you mean with investment up until 1979.

Saddam's attack on Iran was encouraged and supported by the US and Britain? Anybody else involved there John? Recently declassified US intelligence papers explored both the domestic and foreign implications of Iran's apparent (in 1982) victory over Iraq in their then two-year old war shows how US was behind the prolonged conflict to keep Iran from winning the war for numerous reasons which were against the interests of the US.

- "Western support for Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war has clearly been established. It is no secret that the United States, the Soviet Union, West Germany, France, many western companies, and Britain provided military support and even components of Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction program (see reference to dual use items below)"

- "Much of what Iraq received from the West, however, were not arms per se, but so-called dual-use technology— mainframe computers, armored ambulances, helicopters, chemicals, and the like, with potential civilian uses as well as military applications."

- The source of Iraqi arms purchases between 1970 and 1990 (10 % of the world market during this period) are estimated to be:
Soviet Union........................B$19.2 or 61% of total
France.................................B$5.5 or 18% of total
People's Republic of China...B$1.7 or 5% of total
Brazil...................................B$1.1 or 4% of total
Egypt...................................B$1.1 or 4% of total
Other countries....................B$2.9 or 6%(See Note)
Total comes to.....................B$31.5

Note: Hey John, B$2.9 or 6% that was the contribution of the US, Germany and Britain - That 6% must have been awfully important for it to have stuck in your memory like that. Just think the US, Germany and the US only just managed to give Saddam more than France.

Sorry Mr. Pilger - You're talking rubbish, that does not even stand up to cursory examination and challenge.