ATS: Bush Administration Lies about Iran and its Nuclear Program

From what I understand, the lie is about the word voluntary.
Iran agreed in doing something voluntary, and then when America does not see them do this they act as if Iran is breaking the agreement.

Jakko, What part of this don’t you understand?

They agreed to do something. I doesn’t mater if the agreement was voluntary or if it was made under the threat of international sanctions, they agreed to it.

That was the point of the whole agreement, Iran agreed to dismantle their fuel cycle processing systems.

If they don’t do that how can the still be in compliance with the agreement?





[edit on 9-5-2005 by HowardRoark]

I doesn’t mater if the agreement was voluntary or if it was made under the threat of international sanctions, they agreed to it.

Howard, it was made under the threat of US and UN sanctions, how can it be an agreement if they were first voluntary made to do it, then threatned to 'agree' or else. Doesn't seem like much of a decision to me, more like another lie by the Bush administration.

And what is ever scarier is that despite of the blatant falsehood of this accusation, people are still defending this lie!

What is the purpose of the sheep herder if the sheep herd the sheep?

JoeDoaks,
Are you tellin me that the Iranian people want to live in oppression? Are you tellin me they want their government to run their lives? Hell, even the Afgan people wanted their freedom and they had it WAY worse then the people of Iran.



Subz,
Marry a man?....where you from?
This is a hard one because I personally don't agree with homosexuality, but, to each their own...as long as noone bothers anyone else...it's all good by me, let them get married, I guess love is love


If I was termanily ill and knew I was going to die a pretty painful death, yea I would take my own life..what are they going to do arrest me?


More than one wife? Jesus, I can barely handle the ONE I have, much less more than one.
Do you have any idea what the murder rate would be in the U.S. if men were allowed to have more than one wife It would be nuts.

Subz,
I personally may not agree with all of our laws, but I also understand why we have them...and remember the only reason we have such laws is because the majority of U.S. citizens believe in them.

EDIT to add....

Regime change might be illegal, BUT its pretty much inevitable when you go to war with another country

[edit on 9-5-2005 by HardCore American]

Jakko, it's not about it being voluntary or not, that's just misdirection.

But the agreement that Iran entered into November of last year in Paris with Britain, France and Germany, is that it will not just suspend its nuclear fuel cycle activities. It will actually lead to cessation and dismantling.

The Iranians NEVER said that. The US administration is LYING that they entered an agreement to dismantle their nuclear activities.

Of course the statement went to press, got gobbled up by the majority of the public and there's been no retraction. It's just another lie that won't surface again until we're in Iran and planning to take Syria.

Howard, it was made under the threat of US and UN sanctions, how can it be an agreement if they were first voluntary made to do it, then threatned to 'agree' or else. Doesn't seem like much of a decision to me, more like another lie by the Bush administration.

And what is ever scarier is that despite of the blatant falsehood of this accusation, people are still defending this lie!

Simulacra, what are you talking about? They agreed to do something. That is very clear. If they fail to live up to the agreement, then they fail, or are you trying to determine what the definition of “is” is?


Where did Burns lie? What specific statement is untrue? As it has already been pointed out, the story linked to in the original post clearly had it wrong.



Mythatsabigprobe:

But the agreement that Iran entered into November of last year in Paris with Britain, France and Germany, is that it will not just suspend its nuclear fuel cycle activities. It will actually lead to cessation and dismantling.

That is what this part of the agreement is talking about (in typical diplo-legalistic fashion):

Sustaining the suspension, while negotiations on a long-term agreement are under way, will be essential for the continuation of the overall process. In the context of this suspension, the E3/EU and Iran have agreed to begin negotiations, with a view to reaching a mutually acceptable agreement on long term arrangements. The agreement will provide objective guarantees that Iran's nuclear programme is exclusively for peaceful purposes. It will equally provide firm guarantees on nuclear, technological and economic cooperation and firm commitments on security issues.

[edit on 9-5-2005 by HowardRoark]

Howard, you said:

That is what this part of the agreement is talking about (in typical diplo-legalistic fashion):

: Sustaining the suspension, while negotiations on a long-term agreement are under way, will be essential for the continuation of the overall process. In the context of this suspension, the E3/EU and Iran have agreed to begin negotiations, with a view to reaching a mutually acceptable agreement on long term arrangements. The agreement will provide objective guarantees that Iran's nuclear programme is exclusively for peaceful purposes. It will equally provide firm guarantees on nuclear, technological and economic cooperation and firm commitments on security issues.

By you own quote, there isnt even an agreement yet. read it agian.

while negotiations on a long-term agreement are under way

So if there is NO agreement, then how can this actually be true?

The fact is, there is NO agreement that is legally binding to the Iranians. I may not agree with their policies, but they have a right to be a soverign state. While we have NO right to tell them how to act. Especially with our track record as of late. So, NO agreement means Burns is a bald face liar.

[edit on 5/9/05 by Kidfinger]

That is what this part of the agreement is talking about (in typical diplo-legalistic fashion):

quote: Sustaining the suspension, while negotiations on a long-term agreement are under way, will be essential for the continuation of the overall process. In the context of this suspension, the E3/EU and Iran have agreed to begin negotiations, with a view to reaching a mutually acceptable agreement on long term arrangements. The agreement will provide objective guarantees that Iran's nuclear programme is exclusively for peaceful purposes. It will equally provide firm guarantees on nuclear, technological and economic cooperation and firm commitments on security issues.

Sorry friend, "mutually acceptable agreements" don't equal a pledge to dismantle a nation's nuclear facilities in legaleeze or any other language. Why don't you just admit it, the guy lied. He lied to make us believe Iran is breaking some non-existant pact and we better kill 'em quick before they make.. gasp! ...a bomb!

I've heard it before, Iraq, Iran, hell there's only one letter difference may as well use the same lies.

If Burns lied so did the Iranian government....they agreed to do it voluntarily, whether or not you want to discuss the semantics of an agreement, they said they will do it, but are now retracting.

HowardRock
Is it safe to accuse you of lying in order to protect the interest of Mr.Burns? You've lead this entire thread on a campaign to validate what this man is saying despite the fact that it is a falsehood. I guess the question is why do you believe in the mans lie so much to defend it?

If Burns lied so did the Iranian government....they agreed to do it voluntarily, whether or not you want to discuss the semantics of an agreement, they said they will do it, but are now retracting.

What did they say they'd do that they're not doing? There has to be a misunderstanding here because a lot of people obviously think Iran did something wrong according to this agreement. I don't see it, in fact I see a country bending over to accomodate the E3 and IAEA, and looking for a diplomatic solution. But we can't have that now can we?

Muadibb says:

If Burns lied so did the Iranian government....they agreed to do it voluntarily, whether or not you want to discuss the semantics of an agreement, they said they will do it, but are now retracting.

M, there is no agreement for them to pull out of. As I pointed out before, the negotiations are still in process and have not been finalized. Agian, No agreement means Mr. Burns is a bald face liar.

[edit on 5/9/05 by Kidfinger]

I feel like im going to explode. Some of you people would argue that the Earth is flat!

Read the agreement!

All the agreement says is that they will VOLUNTARILY SUSPEND (look those word s up if you like) the enrichment of Uranium until a long term agreement can be sorted out.

The Iranians NEVER agreed to dismantling their enrichment apparatus. If they NEVER agreed to dismantle so much as a deck chair then how can they be in violation for not dismantling? Its a lie

Second, it was a voluntary measure to SUSPEND the enrichment of Uranium. If they start enriching again tomorrow they will have broken no legal agreement. It was merely a voluntary confidence building excerice designed to show good faith on the part of the Iranians.

The E3/EU recognize that this suspension is a voluntary confidence building measure and not a legal obligation.

How clearer can that be? The Iranians never agreed to dismantle a single thing and the suspension was voluntary and non-legally binding.

READ THE AGREEMENT AND READ BURNS LIES!

OK, I'll concede the point. There is a difference between suspension and dismantlement.

However, the difference between what we want (dismantlement) versus what the Iranians say they are going to do (suspend) is a moot point really, since it has been clear from the get go that the Iranians have no intention of stopping their programs.

Some interesting analysis of the agreement

One view

This one is good, views from all over.

the latest call for dismantlement (From the EU!)


a decent chronology


It is clear that few people really think that Iran will seriously live up to any agreements that have been made or will be made in the future.


Iran will not stop until they have a nuclear weapon.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
OK, I'll concede the point. There is a difference between suspension and dismantlement.

Yeah about as different as Pause and Rewind on your VCR!

Originally posted by HowardRoark
However, the difference between what we want (dismantlement) versus what the Iranians say they are going to do (suspend) is a moot point really,

Nice choice of words there, very insightful.

Moot: of no significance or relevance

Well I think that sums up American attidues nicely. "We want" does not fly in the wider world regardless of whether its the United States who's doing the demanding. Claiming that the Iranians will and sovereignty is irrelevant is exactly how the Bush administration views the situation.

The Iranians are an advanced nation and they shouldnt be underestimated. They will know, to the letter, the legality of the NPT and will run rings around United States belligerence in the United Nations. It will be quite interesting to watch.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
It is clear that few people really think that Iran will seriously live up to any agreements that have been made or will be made in the future.

Iran will not stop until they have a nuclear weapon.

Since when has living up to agreements been the bedrock of American foreign policy?

Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty [NPT]
Provisions
The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, also referred to as the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), obligates the five acknowledged nuclear-weapon states (the United States, Russian Federation, United Kingdom, France, and China) not to transfer nuclear weapons, other nuclear explosive devices, or their technology to any non-nuclear-weapon state. Non-nuclear-weapon States Parties undertake not to acquire or produce nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive devices. They are required also to accept safeguards to detect diversions of nuclear materials from peaceful activities, such as power generation, to the production of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. This must be done in accordance with an individual safeguards agreement, concluded between each non-nuclear-weapon State Party and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Under these agreements, all nuclear materials in peaceful civil facilities under the jurisdiction of the state must be declared to the IAEA, whose inspectors have routine access to the facilities for periodic monitoring and inspections. If information from routine inspections is not sufficient to fulfill its responsibilities, the IAEA may consult with the state regarding special inspections within or outside declared facilities.

It seems to me that the Iranians are living up to the NPT to the letter. They are allowed nuclear power plants under the NPT so long as the IAEA has unfettered access to their plants. The Iranians have allowed the IAEA to inspect everything. The Americans will have to keep fishing for a reason to invade.

from yahoo! news
Under the 188-nation pact, nations without nuclear weapons pledge not to pursue them, in exchange for a commitment by five nuclear-weapons states — the United States, Russia, Britain, France and China — to negotiate toward nuclear disarmament.

What negotiations for nuclear disarmament have we seen the United States enter into? Let me help you - none

That is a clear and material breach of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. What should the "punishment" for that non-compliance be? Suggestions?

from yahoo! news (more)
Nuclear "have-nots" complain that the Bush administration, in particular, has acted contrary to those commitments, by rejecting the nuclear test-ban treaty, for example.

Washington, for its part, wants the conference to focus on what it alleges are
Iran's plans to build nuclear arms in violation of the treaty, and on
North Korea's withdrawal from the treaty and claim to have nuclear bombs.

Blix told reporters there is "a great deal of concern" about North Korea and Iran among states without nuclear weapons.

But "that feeling of concern is somewhat muted by the feeling that the United States in particular, and perhaps some other nuclear weapons states, are not taking the common bargain as seriously as they had committed themselves to do in the past," he said.

He cited Bush administration proposals to build new nuclear weapons and talk in Washington even of testing weapons, ending a 13-year-old U.S. moratorium on nuclear tests. He also referred to statements by Bolton,
President Bush's embattled nominee to be U.N. ambassador, devaluing treaties and the authority of international law.

"Why are you (USA) complaining about (North Korea) breaching the treaty if treaties are not binding?" Blix, an international lawyer, asked rhetorically.

This man hits the nail right on the head!

U.S Not Commited to Nuke 'Bargain'

[edit on 10/5/05 by subz]

Debating about the legitimacy reasons to invade Iran is a waste of time (although not to detract from the intelligent cases people have made here in this thread) because the Bush administration has proven before that they will manufacture the 'why' to fit the 'will'. What was it that the Downing Street revelations revealed? "The intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy". There was no WMD threat, there was no humanitarian crisis, there was no tangible connection to Al-Qaeda, and there simply was no plausibly defendable justification to invade...but they still did. And if they want to invade Iran and make it a tri-fecta, they will, Security Council be damned, popular sentiment be damned, and truth be in the toilet.

If we, the undeniable aggressors, do go ahead and invade yet another sovereign country, it will leave absolutely no doubt that this whole demonic crusade (historic reference intended) is about:
a) Imperialism
b) Oil
c) Biblical armageddon
or
d) All of the above

Hell, I remember the first Gulf War, I was 20 years old and cheering along with the bombs and sucked in by all the propaganda as well. But somewhere along the line I realized that we've all been had. BIG time. And if you're still living in some sort of psycho-protective denial that we're in the moral right over this thing, well hey, a couple more hundred thousand dead aint gonna change that.

It's time for people to take sides. You're either with shameless greed, spectacular hypocrisy and rampant imperialism, or you're against it. And judging by the election results in what is turning out to be the true axis of evil, i.e. the Australian, American, and British governments, more than 50% of people are WITH it. But the stupidest thing with that is, we don't actually gain anything from it. Nothing. In fact, we LOSE. Empires always do.

[edit on 2005/5/10 by wecomeinpeace]

Agreed Wecomeinpeace, I was born here in Britain and spent most of my life in Australia. I know how ignorant the populations of both countries can be. They are completly manipulated by fear and false promises.

The billion dollar question is...what do we do about it?

The elections are fixed.

Any armed resistance is classed as terrorism.

Arguing the case falls on deaf ears.

Help?