U.s. Or Israeli Attack On Iran Could Contaminate Middle East

[weedzilla420]

http://infowars.com/articles/ww3/ira...iddle_east.htm


U.S. OR ISRAELI ATTACK ON IRAN COULD CONTAMINATE MIDDLE EAST

Infowars.com | January 5, 2006
Sherwood Ross

If the U.S. or Israel attack Iranian nuclear power facilities "huge amounts
of radioactive material will be lofted into the air to contaminate the
people of Iran and surrounding countries," an eminent international
authority on nuclear weapons warns.

"This fallout will induce cancers, leukemia, and genetic disease in these
populations for years to come, both a medical catastrophe and a war crime of
immense proportions," Dr. Helen Caldicott writes in her new book, "Nuclear
Power Is Not The Answer," published by The New Press.

Dr. Caldicott said the Pentagon has met with its Israeli counterparts "to
discuss the participation of Israel in plans to attack Iran" even though
President Bush said "this notion that the United States is getting ready to
attack Iran is simply ridiculous."

Citing the accidental meltdown of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in the
Ukraine in April, 1986, as an example of what can happen when radioactivity
is released, she termed it a "medical catastrophe (that) will continue to
plague much of Russia, Belarus, the Ukraine, and Europe for the rest of
time." Between 5,000 and 10,000 people have died prematurely to date, she
said.

Between 1986 and 2001, Belarus suffered 8,358 cases of thyroid cancer as a
result of the Chernobyl meltdown, and most of the afflicted have had their
thyroids surgically removed, leaving them dependent on thyroid medications
for the rest of their lives, said Dr. Caldicott, a physician and
anti-nuclear activist. She writes the areas of Europe, and its populations,
afflicted by the Chernobyl accident will suffer from its impact "for
thousands of years."

Dr. Caldicott noted Israel, along with Pakistan and India, are "rogue
nations, outlaws who choose not to abide by international law" for their
refusal to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty(NPT). "Understandably,
the Arab states resent the IAEA's intrusions on Iran, as the United States
accuses it of a covert but un-proven nuclear weapons program, whereas
Israel, also a covert nuclear state but a close U.S. ally, receives no such
scrutiny."

"It is unwise and dangerous for Israel to possess a nuclear arsenal," she
pointed out, as "such weapons are highly provocative for Israel's Arab
neighbors" and their presence "actively encourages Arab states to build
their own."

One or two nuclear bombs landing on the tiny Israeli nation would obliterate
it," Dr. Caldicott said. "Or, conversely, if a large conventional weapon
landed on Dimona (the Negev Nuclear Research Center), the ensuing meltdown
would kill millions of people."

Dr. Caldicott said "the Bush administration has adopted some very
provocative and dangerous policies --- all of them in direct violation of
the Non-Proliferation Treaty---which inevitably have led and will continue
to lead to the proliferation of nuclear weapons in other countries."

She charged Bush has drafted a revised plan allowing military commanders to
request presidential approval to use nuclear weapons to preempt an attack by
a nation or terrorist group deemed to be planning to use WMD.

"The 'revised plan' reflects a preemptive nuclear strategy first enunciated
by the White House in 2002. Had this strategy been in place before the
invasion of Iraq, a nuclear attack could have been justified to 'take out'
Iraq's imaginary WMD," Dr. Caldicott wrote.

Under the NPT, Dr. Caldicott said, Iran is "perfectly entitled to pursue a
uranium enrichment program for peaceful purposes" and she noted in the past
"Iran was actively encouraged by the United States to develop its own
nuclear power program."

She quoted Tony Benn, a former British M.P., stating that when he was
secretary of state for energy "enormous pressure was put on me...to agree to
sell nuclear power stations" to the Shah of Iran, "who had been put on the
throne by the U.S." Benn said the pressure came from the Atomic Energy
Authority and U.S. manufacturer Westinghouse, "who were anxious to promote
their own design of reactor."

Dr. Caldicott said, "Having initially encouraged Iran to develop nuclear
capabilities, the United States now has plans to bomb Iran with nuclear
weapons for doing so."

Dr. Caldicott not only opposes development, stockpiling, and deployment of
nuclear weapons but the use of nuclear plants for supplying energy as well
on grounds they are inherently dangerous -- as meltdowns at Chernobyl and
Three Mile Island in the U.S. on March 28, 1979, demonstrated.

Additionally, she contends the extraction of the world's dwindling supply of
uranium ore for reactors is very costly and contributes greatly to the
greenhouse effect, just the opposite of the nuclear power industry's
contention nuclear plants are environmentally friendly.

[JollyRoger227]

At least 10 countries have the nuclear capacity to destroy the world, sleep tight children.

[Rasta_Man]

I'm proud that my country, though we fully have the capability and resources, refuse to arm ourselves with nuclear weapons.

[Bliz-NATI]

Originally Posted by JollyRoger227

At least 10 countries have the nuclear capacity to destroy the world, sleep tight children.

its funny to me that they outlaw a plant like marijuana, yet dabble in radioactive material? hmm safe?

whats this world coming too? i dont agree with nuclear anything either.

[Rasta_Man]

At the same time, Canada has no problem building dozens of nuclear reactors... yet we don't have any kind of long-term plan for disposal of nuclear waste......

Well.. I guess thats what you get when the Conservatives deal with the environment.

[Picolli]

I'm Israeli, and we need nukes since there are only 6 million of us and 500 million Arabs. I have nothing against Arabs by the way thought, but there leadership is really fucked up and they need to overthrow their governments. But I don't know, because the Palestinians held elections and elected Hamas soooo...yeaaa. But Iran needs to be taken out, someone who denies the holocaust and calls for the destruction of another nation shouldn't be allowed to control such dangerous and deadly devices. I don't believe that article for a second. And even if it were true, what do you suggest Israel and the U.S. do? Tyrants don't respond to anything but force. If it's kill or be killed, then I choose to kill. I pray for peace with our neighbors and wish them to have their own states, and establish great political and economic bonds with them-- but they do not wish the same. When we destroyed Iraq's nuclear capability, nothing of the sort happened. When we destroy Iran's nuclear capability, nothing will happen (especially since 98% of their sites are underground under about 25feet on concrete.)

I'll save the rest of my shit for later.

[Rasta_Man]

Originally Posted by Picolli

I'm Israeli, and we need nukes since there are only 6 million of us and 500 million Arabs. I have nothing against Arabs by the way thought, but there leadership is really fucked up and they need to overthrow their governments. But I don't know, because the Palestinians held elections and elected Hamas soooo...yeaaa. But Iran needs to be taken out, someone who denies the holocaust and calls for the destruction of another nation shouldn't be allowed to control such dangerous and deadly devices. I don't believe that article for a second. And even if it were true, what do you suggest Israel and the U.S. do? Tyrants don't respond to anything but force. If it's kill or be killed, then I choose to kill. I pray for peace with our neighbors and wish them to have their own states, and establish great political and economic bonds with them-- but they do not wish the same. When we destroyed Iraq's nuclear capability, nothing of the sort happened. When we destroy Iran's nuclear capability, nothing will happen (especially since 98% of their sites are underground under about 25feet on concrete.)

I'll save the rest of my shit for later.

Re-read those highlighted sections.

[JollyRoger227]

Originally Posted by Picolli

I'm Israeli, and we need nukes since there are only 6 million of us and 500 million Arabs. I have nothing against Arabs by the way thought, but there leadership is really fucked up and they need to overthrow their governments. But I don't know, because the Palestinians held elections and elected Hamas soooo...yeaaa. But Iran needs to be taken out, someone who denies the holocaust and calls for the destruction of another nation shouldn't be allowed to control such dangerous and deadly devices. I don't believe that article for a second. And even if it were true, what do you suggest Israel and the U.S. do? Tyrants don't respond to anything but force. If it's kill or be killed, then I choose to kill. I pray for peace with our neighbors and wish them to have their own states, and establish great political and economic bonds with them-- but they do not wish the same. When we destroyed Iraq's nuclear capability, nothing of the sort happened. When we destroy Iran's nuclear capability, nothing will happen (especially since 98% of their sites are underground under about 25feet on concrete.)

I'll save the rest of my shit for later.

Fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity, you can't say you pray for peace, but at the same time think that only way to deal with a tyrant is by force. To take out Iran by force, would probably be the worst decision I can think to make.

[Picolli]

Originally Posted by JollyRoger227

Fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity, you can't say you pray for peace, but at the same time think that only way to deal with a tyrant is by force. To take out Iran by force, would probably be the worst decision I can think to make.

Ummm...yes I can. I pray for peace in the fashion that I pray for my neighbors not to be ruled by tyrants. I wish that peace would prevail over war, but I'm not going to stand by and let my countrymen be slaughtered. I pray that Ahmadinejad wouldn't rule Iran, and that rather they would be ruled by a peaceful moderate. Sometimes you do need to make war for peace, history has taught us that. Do you think that taking out Iran by force is a worse decision then letting him get a nuclear bomb? You think preventing a man who blatantly calls for the destruction of another nation from getting a weapon which could achieve a genocide in a matter of minutes is a worse decision? I'm sorry, but we learned from the holocaust. We will not go like sheep to the slaughter.

[JollyRoger227]

Originally Posted by Picolli

Ummm...yes I can. I pray for peace in the fashion that I pray for my neighbors not to be ruled by tyrants. I wish that peace would prevail over war, but I'm not going to stand by and let my countrymen be slaughtered. I pray that Ahmadinejad wouldn't rule Iran, and that rather they would be ruled by a peaceful moderate. Sometimes you do need to make war for peace, history has taught us that. Do you think that taking out Iran by force is a worse decision then letting him get a nuclear bomb? You think preventing a man who blatantly calls for the destruction of another nation from getting a weapon which could achieve a genocide in a matter of minutes is a worse decision? I'm sorry, but we learned from the holocaust. We will not go like sheep to the slaughter.

It will be nothing like the Holocaust, you'll all be blown to pieces if he gets a nuclear bomb, firstly...

Second of all, let's talk about history. WW1 the war to end ALL wars, here we are 2007, and what's going on wars all over the place. Bush sent our troops, my neighbors and friends to go fight for peace in the Middle East. We went in to help remove a tyrant, and they are no better off now then when we went in. People from both sides are still dying every single day. So I guess taking out those countries by force wasn't such a great idea.

War will never bring peace, it brings far too much destruction and pain to anyone and everyone involved.

[Rasta_Man]

Originally Posted by Picolli

Ummm...yes I can. I pray for peace in the fashion that I pray for my neighbors not to be ruled by tyrants. I wish that peace would prevail over war, but I'm not going to stand by and let my countrymen be slaughtered. I pray that Ahmadinejad wouldn't rule Iran, and that rather they would be ruled by a peaceful moderate. Sometimes you do need to make war for peace, history has taught us that. Do you think that taking out Iran by force is a worse decision then letting him get a nuclear bomb? You think preventing a man who blatantly calls for the destruction of another nation from getting a weapon which could achieve a genocide in a matter of minutes is a worse decision? I'm sorry, but we learned from the holocaust. We will not go like sheep to the slaughter.

Your mixing and matching definitions.

Ahmadinejad is a democratically elected leader, not some tyrannical dictator, unlike Pahlavi

(Pahlavi whom was put into power by the CIA and after the 1953 coup)

[chronicsmokeyaz]

Originally Posted by weedzilla420

http://infowars.com/articles/ww3/ira...iddle_east.htm


U.S. OR ISRAELI ATTACK ON IRAN COULD CONTAMINATE MIDDLE EAST

Infowars.com | January 5, 2006
Sherwood Ross

If the U.S. or Israel attack Iranian nuclear power facilities "huge amounts
of radioactive material will be lofted into the air to contaminate the
people of Iran and surrounding countries," an eminent international
authority on nuclear weapons warns.

"This fallout will induce cancers, leukemia, and genetic disease in these
populations for years to come, both a medical catastrophe and a war crime of
immense proportions," Dr. Helen Caldicott writes in her new book, "Nuclear
Power Is Not The Answer," published by The New Press.

Dr. Caldicott said the Pentagon has met with its Israeli counterparts "to
discuss the participation of Israel in plans to attack Iran" even though
President Bush said "this notion that the United States is getting ready to
attack Iran is simply ridiculous."

Citing the accidental meltdown of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in the
Ukraine in April, 1986, as an example of what can happen when radioactivity
is released, she termed it a "medical catastrophe (that) will continue to
plague much of Russia, Belarus, the Ukraine, and Europe for the rest of
time." Between 5,000 and 10,000 people have died prematurely to date, she
said.

Between 1986 and 2001, Belarus suffered 8,358 cases of thyroid cancer as a
result of the Chernobyl meltdown, and most of the afflicted have had their
thyroids surgically removed, leaving them dependent on thyroid medications
for the rest of their lives, said Dr. Caldicott, a physician and
anti-nuclear activist. She writes the areas of Europe, and its populations,
afflicted by the Chernobyl accident will suffer from its impact "for
thousands of years."

Dr. Caldicott noted Israel, along with Pakistan and India, are "rogue
nations, outlaws who choose not to abide by international law" for their
refusal to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty(NPT). "Understandably,
the Arab states resent the IAEA's intrusions on Iran, as the United States
accuses it of a covert but un-proven nuclear weapons program, whereas
Israel, also a covert nuclear state but a close U.S. ally, receives no such
scrutiny."

"It is unwise and dangerous for Israel to possess a nuclear arsenal," she
pointed out, as "such weapons are highly provocative for Israel's Arab
neighbors" and their presence "actively encourages Arab states to build
their own."

One or two nuclear bombs landing on the tiny Israeli nation would obliterate
it," Dr. Caldicott said. "Or, conversely, if a large conventional weapon
landed on Dimona (the Negev Nuclear Research Center), the ensuing meltdown
would kill millions of people."

Dr. Caldicott said "the Bush administration has adopted some very
provocative and dangerous policies --- all of them in direct violation of
the Non-Proliferation Treaty---which inevitably have led and will continue
to lead to the proliferation of nuclear weapons in other countries."

She charged Bush has drafted a revised plan allowing military commanders to
request presidential approval to use nuclear weapons to preempt an attack by
a nation or terrorist group deemed to be planning to use WMD.

"The 'revised plan' reflects a preemptive nuclear strategy first enunciated
by the White House in 2002. Had this strategy been in place before the
invasion of Iraq, a nuclear attack could have been justified to 'take out'
Iraq's imaginary WMD," Dr. Caldicott wrote.

Under the NPT, Dr. Caldicott said, Iran is "perfectly entitled to pursue a
uranium enrichment program for peaceful purposes" and she noted in the past
"Iran was actively encouraged by the United States to develop its own
nuclear power program."

She quoted Tony Benn, a former British M.P., stating that when he was
secretary of state for energy "enormous pressure was put on me...to agree to
sell nuclear power stations" to the Shah of Iran, "who had been put on the
throne by the U.S." Benn said the pressure came from the Atomic Energy
Authority and U.S. manufacturer Westinghouse, "who were anxious to promote
their own design of reactor."

Dr. Caldicott said, "Having initially encouraged Iran to develop nuclear
capabilities, the United States now has plans to bomb Iran with nuclear
weapons for doing so."

Dr. Caldicott not only opposes development, stockpiling, and deployment of
nuclear weapons but the use of nuclear plants for supplying energy as well
on grounds they are inherently dangerous -- as meltdowns at Chernobyl and
Three Mile Island in the U.S. on March 28, 1979, demonstrated.

Additionally, she contends the extraction of the world's dwindling supply of
uranium ore for reactors is very costly and contributes greatly to the
greenhouse effect, just the opposite of the nuclear power industry's
contention nuclear plants are environmentally friendly.

i pray to god that the US doesnt go to war with IRAN, biggest mistake the US will ever make in history, trust me US is very strong(strongest) and they got plenty of allies, but IRAN has plenty of allies, the US will win if the war ever happend but allot of people would die, keep peace, and legalize marijuana fuckers not WAR!!!

[Rasta_Man]

Originally Posted by chronicsmokeyaz

i pray to god that the US doesnt go to war with IRAN, biggest mistake the US will ever make in history, trust me US is very strong(strongest) and they got plenty of allies, but IRAN has plenty of allies, the US will win if the war ever happend but allot of people would die, keep peace, and legalize marijuana fuckers not WAR!!!

The ingredients for a World War.




Meanwhile China continues to grow, to strength and bide their time until the moment is ripe.

[bluewoods]

Originally Posted by Rasta_Man

The ingredients for a World War.




Meanwhile China continues to grow, to strength and bide their time until the moment is ripe.

Yeah, when China takes over our natural resources legally, all bought and paid for, how are Americans going to react?

[Picolli]

Originally Posted by JollyRoger227

It will be nothing like the Holocaust, you'll all be blown to pieces if he gets a nuclear bomb, firstly...

Second of all, let's talk about history. WW1 the war to end ALL wars, here we are 2007, and what's going on wars all over the place. Bush sent our troops, my neighbors and friends to go fight for peace in the Middle East. We went in to help remove a tyrant, and they are no better off now then when we went in. People from both sides are still dying every single day. So I guess taking out those countries by force wasn't such a great idea.

War will never bring peace, it brings far too much destruction and pain to anyone and everyone involved.

It will be similar to the holocaust in that 6million of my people would die! Honestly, this is rediculous. Wars will continue until mankind is gone. It's a cycle. What would you propose, that's what I want to know? Do you propose we sit here and LET him get the bomb? That's suicide. You would be killed before killing? And I know he is democratically elected, but you don't think elections are corrupt? Look at the polls now, the Iranians hate him. And regarding your comment on Iraq. Yes people are dying everyday, but if he had gotten WMDs (which he would have eventually) then it could have caused the deaths of many more people in the future. If we didn't fight Nazi germany what do you think would've happened? I apologize, but I don't see your logic. I don't mean to be rude or anything of the sort, but to let the new Hitler get an atomic bomb is suicide.

__________________