Are you a denier of Fukushima radiation in your seafood?

NuclearCrimes.org

Prologue - The Evolution and Global Victims of a Nuclear Cover-up

Hypothetical conversation:

Jane: I'm so worried about Iran getting the bomb.

Bob: Why?

Jane: Because Ah...jad...ma...that leader guy...said Israel should be wiped off the map. We have to stop Iran from having the bomb because their leaders are so irrational and crazy that they would actually use them....

Bob: Well, some would say the U.S. was crazy to actually nuke Japanese cities when it could have resorted to other means, like a 'demonstration' test in the ocean, and that would have been just as effective at bringing about a surrender.

Jane: You don't understand...they want to annihilate an entire country! We ended the war and saved countless American lives. Do you really want to take a chance that Iran will actually not do what they say they want to do to Israel?

Bob: So Iran can't be trusted and since countries that can't be trusted can't have nuclear weapons, then Iran can't have them? It's much better established that Israel has developed nuclear weapons than is the case for Iran. And Israel did it illegally. Isn't that sufficient evidence to distrust Israel? Using your logic, Israel also shouldn't have nuclear weapons!

Jane: But...

Bob: Why can't Iranians be capable of genuine distrust of another nation? Perhaps Iran is seeking a nuclear deterrent to prevent an Israeli attack on their own people.

Jane: If Israel secretly developed nuclear weapons, it did so because it had to! Israel is surrounded by countries that want it...and will it...to simply stop existing.

Bob: So, if your nation is despised, then it's okay to have nuclear weapons...except if your leaders are crazy, right?

Jane: It's not 'okay' that U.S., France, Russia and the other nuclear club nations have them. They are working to disarm. And they are far less irrational than some of these crazy rogue nations' leaders. But disarming doesn't make sense until we fully stop other nations - especially the unpredictable ones - from become nuclear...

Bob: And how exactly do we do that? How do we stop them from becoming nuclear if the IAEA can't? Invade them? Recall what we did to Iraq.

Jane: In Iraq, we were protecting the Arab world and Europe from a fascist, ruthless dictator who could have done lasting harm on the free world with nuclear weapons that we mistakenly thought he was building. In the end, we brought democracy and elections to Iraq. Saddam also used chemical weapons on his own people. His own people! He needed to be deposed.

Bob: The ends in the Iraq war don't justify the means. The shifting of excuses why the U.S. ended up occupying Iraq, one minute about WMDs, the next about democracy, the next about 'finishing the job,' doesn't justify the illegal attack and occupation. Actually, I believe the ends in this case add insult to the means because the U.S.'s set of excuses was a cover for why we were really there - to steal their oil! And as for using chemical weapons on people, do you really think in a democracy the same would never happen?

Jane: Certainly never!

Bob: Well, the U.S. government in fact did poison thousands of its own people with radioactive fallout from its nuclear weapons tests. The government ignored victims for 30 to 40 years. There are still victims who aren't recognized.

Jane: What are you talking about!?

Bob: The downwinders. Heard of them?

Jane: No...

Bob: What is so great about democracy and free elections if the U.S. got away with harming, even killing some of its own people? The courts, in the end, sided with the government, not the victims.

Jane: That's ludicrous...!

Bob: It is and it's true. I think the threat from domestic enemies is far more serious than those abroad. The reason is because that's the last place we'd look for an enemy - in our own ranks. Iran never hurt us with any weapon, including a nuclear one. On the other hand, history tells us that after World War II our own government harmed us with nuclear weapons fallout and lied about it.