BS: The coming war with Iran?

Subject: RE: BS: The coming war with Iran?
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Feb 06 - 07:17 AM

akenaton (19 Feb 06 - 04:03 AM)

Have you actually bothered to read what the nuclear non-proliferation treaty requires of it's signatories, or is that sort of thing just too tedious for you? If you did bother to read it, you, like the head of the IAEA would have come to the conclusion that Iran has not complied with it's obligations under that treaty. So exactly where does Mr. Pilger get off by saying that they have, I would tend to believe Mohammed AlBaradei's 'take' on the subject before I would ever believe any Fleet Street Hack with an agenda. That I believe is based on common sense and logic.

Exactly what "evidence" has come into the public domain since bush claimed "victory"??

I agree wholeheartedly that the "actual decision to go to war had been taken previously" there was no other reason for parking 250,000 troops on Iraq's borders during the latter part of 2002. Their presence and the signals given by that move was the only thing that prompted Saddam Hussein into inviting the UNMOVIC inspection teams back into Iraq - Even Hans Blix acknowledges that - you somehow can't, based on what? I most certainly do not know, and I don't think you know either, apart from your own preconceived notions.

As far as the people of the United States of America and the United Kingdom being fooled. At present the only person trying to fool them is John Pilger. It is rather odd that Mr. Pilger doesn't comment on the French, German, Russian and Chinese perspective on what is currently happening in Iran - Probably not "cool", "populist" or "trendy" enough.

Who were Chirac's remarks about use of nuclear weapons addressed to Akenaton? And more important why? I see you chose not to comment on them.