Saying "the alternative to this agreement with Iran [. . .] is an attack on Iran." is a false argument, propaganda. Alternatives include but are not limited to maintaining sanctions and not giving Iran $150 billion, which can be used for terrorism. Saying "Iran [. . .] would be prevented from developing one [nuclear weapon] by this treaty." is not true. It delays does not prevent. He admits it is a treaty here, which requires 2/3 approval of the US Senate. Saying "none of the threat of nuclear war [. . .] will come from Iran." has no basis in fact, no evidence. Iran threatens to destroy the US and Israel. Shannon cites unnamed U.S. officials defending possession and threats to use nuclear weapons. Do words have any meaning when they come from Washington DC officials? He cherry picks statements and organizations for support. His arguments are talking points promoted by the White House. No recognition of alternatives. Nonsense and propaganda. Iran gets 24 day notice for inspections. No Americans can be inspectors. No concern about procedural violations by the White House forcing the treaty on a reluctant congress and population. If this treaty is so great why is it secret with even Congress being denied access to details, side deals? Is this a position paper of the AFSC? Shannon does not recognize the role of the Cambridge Nuclear War and Peace Commission which prevented nuclear war in Cambridge, Italy and South America for 29 years.
http://cambridge.wickedlocal.com/article/20150918/NEWS/150916206
Guest column: Getting things straight about the Iran deal
By Paul Shannon, AFSC
Posted Sep. 18, 2015 at 10:08 AM
CAMBRIDGE Chronicle
No comments:
Post a Comment