It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Iran Playing "Hide and Seek" with its Nuke Program

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrHoracid
Please help me understand what PROOF you need to aknowledge IRAN is seeking Nukes, missiles, and intends on using them. This is not a "chicken little sydrome here". Iran has said many times it will nuke when it has the capability.
I believe they have capabilities, HOWEVER THREATENING AN all out invasion is not the way to resolve this. These people are not to be screwed with. One of Bush's invasions is going to backfire and this might do it. You dont trot around the world invading countries because "intelligence" points to weapons. And as proven before, mostly "bad intelligence" which is then promptly blamed on others.
For Christs sakes.




posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 11:21 AM
link   
Hey Dr.Hroracid are you going to support Bush and join in the military to take care of the evil in the world?

Remember that one, "Saddam did not have MWDs but he had the intention of pursuing them and making them"

Now we are applying that to Iran, God so predictable is not funny


I wonder if all the war happy people will go running to the nearest recruiting offices to offer their bodies for the cause in Iran.



posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Trent
Where have they said that? in the post i quoted they said it would cause a stalemate, in other word a MAD detterent.

[edit on 3-12-2004 by Trent]


Here you go Trent, this was from my post you quoted.

"If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate because application of an atomic bomb would not leave any thing in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world", Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani told the crowd at the traditional Friday prayers in Tehran.

Trent colonialism refers to U.S. involvment in the mideast not Israel, in simple terms he is saying U.S. out of mideast or we'll nuke Israel because we(all of Islam) can absorb the aftermath.

It is a threat.



posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 11:47 AM
link   
Well i said they would rattle the sabre but i doubt they would actually use them, what you high lighted is what would happen as a result of nuclear war. Although the translation isn't that great i think he is saying if we nuked them we would get nuked so no one would use them, therefore we can rattle the sabre. The less nukes there are the safer the world is, the only question is how to stop Iran from getting them. This time i don't think negotiation will work and invasion with little support is going to be difficult. Perhaps Iran should have been higher on the threat list than Iraq and we should have gone there first.

Edit: Ok apon re-reading it a couple of times i do agree that man is crazy. I didn't factor him being crazy enough to literally think there would ONLY be "damages" to his country if they started a nuclear war. So either the translation is off and means what i said, or that guy has lost it.

[edit on 3-12-2004 by Trent]



posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 11:59 AM
link   
The Iranians are going to get popped. Air strikes on suspected nuclear development sites. It ain't gonna be a war, just some surgical strikes to take out some technological stuff.

Don't get all in a twist about it.

Unless the mullahs change their tune some time in '05 Iran is taking a hit.

And a fool would think the Iranians could stand up to an all out assault by the combined forces of England, Ausralia, Canada, the U.S. et. al. It ain't even no sense in arguing with such a cognitively deficient individual.



posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 12:03 PM
link   
The thing is that I don't believe the UK will back US on this one, when elections are set in the UK for next year, is call "politics"

And for canada I doubt that they will support US on this one either.

I think US will be all by itself on this one just like it ended in Iraq.



posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by smokenmirrors
And a fool would think the Iranians could stand up to an all out assault by the combined forces of England, Ausralia, Canada, the U.S. et. al. It ain't even no sense in arguing with such a cognitively deficient individual.


I don't think it would be foolish to think that at all. Their overt military would be destroyed easily enough but it may be hard going from there. Iran has 70 million people as opposed to Iraq's 20 million so I don't think you could say it would be easy going just yet. It would depend on many unpredictable factors.

[edit on 3-12-2004 by Trent]



posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by smokenmirrors

And a fool would think the Iranians could stand up to an all out assault by the combined forces of England, Ausralia, Canada, the U.S. et. al. It ain't even no sense in arguing with such a cognitively deficient individual.



what makes you think England, Ausralia, Canada and so on would want to send their forces in with the US so bush can carry on with his personale crusade this time?



posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by smokenmirrors
The Iranians are going to get popped. Air strikes on suspected nuclear development sites. It ain't gonna be a war, just some surgical strikes to take out some technological stuff.

Don't get all in a twist about it.

Unless the mullahs change their tune some time in '05 Iran is taking a hit.

And a fool would think the Iranians could stand up to an all out assault by the combined forces of England, Ausralia, Canada, the U.S. et. al. It ain't even no sense in arguing with such a cognitively deficient individual.


If Iran really is a terrorist nation, aren't you worried they will retaliate by committing terrorist acts in the US?

Wouldn't you be inviting terrorism?

I think the US knows they'll be safe because they know Iran is not a terrorist nation.

BTW, why are you dragging Canada into your wars?
You really think they want to fight a country that has not invaded anyone?



posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sep
I think they are right in not allowing the inspectors in the military bases. I mean the line is there and should not be crossed. They have visited every nuclear plant and site and now they want to go too military bases? No country in the world would allow that.


I guess you missed that whole arms reduction that the US and USSR had where they allowed each other into the most sensitive nuclear facilities in the world so that it was plain to see the agreement was completed.

If Russia will let the US into it's military bases and vice versa, Iran can.



posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kidfinger
The common thinking for Bush supporters is that Iran is a terrorist state. This may be true, but what no one (Bush supporters) will coment on is what gives USA the right to impose thier will on another country? I can understand doing so if the country in question has attacked us, but Iran hasnt. So what gives us the right to go in there and kill thier political leaders? Thier citizens?


Did you miss that hostage crises in 1980? Have you not noticed that they support terrorism?

To answere your question, what gives us the right to impose our will on them is that they are a THREAT TO US. If they were some benevelent nation we wouldn't be talking about this, would we? If they didn't support Islamic extremists we wouldn't be talking about this, would we?

By your logic, Germany never attacked the US, so we should have never have gotten involved their either. Or do you have a magic number of how many people need to be killed before we are justified in doing the right thing? Or is it only worth doing if those people are white?


Make up your mind - if we were right in fighting Hitler, we were right in fighting Saddam, and if Iran does not comply, we would be right in fighting them as well.


Sep

posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
Did you miss that hostage crises in 1980? Have you not noticed that they support terrorism?

To answere your question, what gives us the right to impose our will on them is that they are a THREAT TO US. If they were some benevelent nation we wouldn't be talking about this, would we? If they didn't support Islamic extremists we wouldn't be talking about this, would we?


The hostage crisis was provoked by the US. They allowed the Shah in their country an when asked to return him to the country for judgment the US didnt. How would you feel if Iran treated BinLadin for cancer?

As for the they are a threat to us. I believe some one said they can not keep a military assult out of their country. If they cannot even defend their own boarders what threat are they to others?

As for them being a terror nation they started their support for Hezbollah at the same year as the US gave aid to BinLandin and I honestly cannot see the diffrence between Hezbollah and the Mujahedin


Sep

posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phoenix
Here you go Trent, this was from my post you quoted.

"If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate because application of an atomic bomb would not leave any thing in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world", Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani told the crowd at the traditional Friday prayers in Tehran.

Trent colonialism refers to U.S. involvment in the mideast not Israel, in simple terms he is saying U.S. out of mideast or we'll nuke Israel because we(all of Islam) can absorb the aftermath.

It is a threat.


did you actually read the article? It says that if we get the bomb there would be stalemate. Because if they use a bomb on us we can bomb Israel so there is nothing left there. From what I undrestoon it is saying that he (a crazed man who people in Iran call "the shark") wants a nuke as a deterned so their will be a "stalemate" in case of any war.


Sep

posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by smokenmirrors
The Iranians are going to get popped. Air strikes on suspected nuclear development sites. It ain't gonna be a war, just some surgical strikes to take out some technological stuff.


Nothing is going to united a divided Iran faster than this. And the hardliners are going to have power with 70 million people behind them. Saddam thought that because they were divided he could take out the country in a few months and we saw what happened.


Sep

posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
I guess you missed that whole arms reduction that the US and USSR had where they allowed each other into the most sensitive nuclear facilities in the world so that it was plain to see the agreement was completed.

If Russia will let the US into it's military bases and vice versa, Iran can.


so they allowed them into the "nuclear facilities". Thats great, Iran has done that too. But have you revealed all your military bases?



posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 06:04 PM
link   
The EU has got Iran to put cameras in its Uranium enrichment facilities. Now they have all the security of a 7-11


This was tried in N Korea with the cameras and it worked real good.


Sep

posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
The EU has got Iran to put cameras in its Uranium enrichment facilities. Now they have all the security of a 7-11


This was tried in N Korea with the cameras and it worked real good.


They should not be allowed to do this but if Iran is happy then ok.


Sep

posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrHoracid
Look at the alternative, how many millions are you will to gamble with? Lives not dollars. Iran IS a terrorist state. Are you willing to gamble the lives of 100 million americans? Iraq was no mistake either. Saddam murdred thousands, used WMD's against his own people. Is that better?

Do some research about Iran. The data is out there. Iraq and Afganistan were just a warm up for the real threat IRAN.........


First: 100 million I think is an exaguration to say the least.

Second: Iran funded Hezbollah in the same year you funded the Mujahedin and there is no deiffrence between them. So if Iran is a terror state so is the US.

Third: Are you going to kill at least a million Iranians to allow yourself to sleep easier? The fact is Iran has and never will give terrorists WMDs. But the West has given dictators WMDs. You should probebly be more worried about France and Germany because they provided a killer with Chemical weapons while Iran never has.

Fourth: Since when did Americans cared about Saddam killing his own people? he did it with the blessing of the US government and was given 1 billion dollars six months later in aid. So I guess you helped and funded a mass murderer. So you can give aid to murderers, so you might give WMD to terrorists. So I think your government is just as scary (if not more) than Iran's.

[edit on 3-12-2004 by Sep]



posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 06:52 PM
link   
As it turns out, the US is tying to frame Iran in on NPT violation : www.abovetopsecret.com...

Another hideous chapter in US history



posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 06:58 PM
link   
Many Iranians pray for peace. This is what happens to them in Iran. Reagan and Gorbachev made peace by meeting together without deception or obfuscation and with a sincere mutual desire to avoid war. If Iran wants war, deception and obfuscation are sure means to get one. The way to peace is clear: collective security and renunciation of WMD. Gorbachev called it 'Glasnost'. Butchery of infidels is not a confidence builder.

It may seem hypocritical that the members of the Security Council have WMD, then go after those trying to acquire WMD. Unless you think like cops clearing a hostile room: anyone with a gun goes down. That's just the way it is.

Let's hope everyone starts talking before its too late.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join