Hello, I've been away for a while, but I have a bone to pick
this week. I noticed on the Republican debate that Ron Paul denounced IAEA Board of Governor’s statement , so I wanted to
read it myself.
http://iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2011/gov2011-65.pdf
I think this document, based on the "Alleged Studies
Documentation", provided to the IAEA by Israel, more than any other I've
seen, shows how the process works here: The incredibly rich will always try to
use the incredibly influential to influence the attitudes of the common person.
Here is the IAEA board of governers, baking a half-truthful
account of how Iran has cooperated fully with them in almost every aspect of
their work in recent years, and then presenting a weak attempt at updating
Israel's old case that the fact that they were involved in nuclear weapons work
in 2003 must prove that somehow they must still be doing it.
I can go into more details, but the bias of Section C and
the Annex speaks for itself. Section A basically shows how the Iran has played
by the rules and has had relatively good success in its nuclear development.
The last parts of the document relies heavily on fallacy, and generally tries
to force the point that having evidence of activity in the past is sufficient
ground for eternal and infinite suspicion. The coup de gras, for
me, though is the final graphic, which basically digests all the
suspicion-based and unproven points made in the document regarding
high-technology for nuclear or dual-use either developed in Iran, or taught
about in Iranian Universities, such as fluid dynamics, and compares them with
major defense-related non-nuclear weapons applications. My point about this
graphic is that it is not a graphic about high technology for defense, it is a
graphic that only deals with a few technologies which relate to nuclear
weapons, therefore, the non-nuclear intersections are therefore guaranteed to be few.
I think this document has proven to me, more than any other
I have seen, how money always follows politics and information, and you will
always have individuals willing to make any kind of statement, or case, no
matter how baseless, in order to influence common people to invest their blood
and treasure in warfare, even against people who are not threatening and even
though the benefits never outweigh the costs nor the risks. The only positive
side in this is always profit, and only for those with a large enough share of
the wealth to benefit well, the 1%.
