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.

 

WAR: U.S. action against Iran can't be ruled out

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 09:40 PM
link   
US Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Douglas J. Feith told The Jerusalem Post in an exclusive interview that nobody should be ruling in or ruling out anything. Feith began his government career in 1981 as an assistant to Soviet expert Richard Pipes at the US National Security Council in the Reagan administration. As Feith was a main advocate for democracy in the former Soviet Union, he continues today with the hopes of the same in the Middle East.
 



www.jpost.com
Feith stated that the US is now concentrating on "a process to try to get the existing international legal mechanisms the nonproliferation treaty [and] the International Atomic Energy Agency to work, to bring the kind of pressure to bear on Iran that would induce the Iranians to follow the path that Libya took in deciding that they were actually better off in abandoning their WMD [weapons of mass destruction] programs."

Feith stressed that the Americans are interested in seeing whether the suspension of uranium-enrichment activities that the Iranians agreed to last month in a deal with France, Germany and Britain "can get turned into a permanent abandonment."

Feith recalled that "the president has said over and over again that he believes that the world will be a better place, there will be a better treatment of people [and] there will be a more secure international environment if there is a development of representative, democratic-type institutions in the Middle East."


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.




France, Germany and Britain have been heavily involved with Iran shutting down it's Nuclear capabilities. While the on and off again talks are going on, Iran has still not agreed to completely stop it's processing of Uranium. Meanwhile, North Korea is said to have at least six Nuclear Weapons, if not more. The six-way talks that have been conducted throughout the past have amounted to nothing. Why are we not pursuing N.K. more? Why are we as of right now just concentrating on The Middle East? There may be a bigger picture to all of this as to why so much attention is being paid to the Middle East, yet N.K. is capable of launching a Nuclear attack. I can not figure it out, and I am not convinced that "OIL" is the main reason.


[edit on 11-12-2004 by TrickmastertricK]



Sep

posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 10:07 PM
link   
"there will be a more secure international environment if there is a development of representative, democratic-type institutions in the Middle East."

LOL, after over 100 years of supression of democracy, the west now wants to bring "democratic-type institutions" to Iran. Is this some kind of a joke? If it is I am not laughing.



posted on Dec, 12 2004 @ 03:10 AM
link   
Yea I'm sure that Bush would love a democracy in Saudi Arabia



posted on Dec, 12 2004 @ 03:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickmastertricK
France, Germany and Britain have been heavily involved with Iran shutting down it's Nuclear capabilities. While the on and off again talks are going on, Iran has still not agreed to completely stop it's processing of Uranium.


We'll quit nuke talks: Iran

IRAN'S top nuclear negotiator Hassan Rowhani has warned that the Islamic republic would abandon key talks with the European Union on its nuclear programme if it was clear no progress was being made.

The talks, set to begin in Brussels tomorrow, are aimed at building on Iran's agreement to suspend sensitive uranium enrichment activities that have sparked fears the clerical regime is seeking to acquire nuclear weapons.

"If at any point that our negotiations are not progressing, we will stop them. The end of these three months of negotiations will indicate to us which point we have reached," added the cleric, who heads Iran's Supreme National Security Council.

On Monday, Mr Rowhani is to meet the British, French and German foreign ministers in a steering committee conference on the sidelines of an EU ministerial gathering.

www.news.com.au...

I reserve comment until we see if this does happen.

Sanc'.



posted on Dec, 12 2004 @ 05:20 AM
link   
The threat of iran obtaining nukes makes an amercan attack thinkable, but if they get them before that happens, it would actually make the american government more cautious about forefully installing demockrazy in iran.

Primary Reason: Saoudi oilfields could be contaminated for many years to come, likewise south Korea is not exactly waiting to assist an amercan intervention in Nkorea, as a nuke might explode in Seoul. Naturally this is far away from american soil, but a whole lot of people on this world would start blaming the american government for initiating such chain of events, including some stockholders of the large corporations.


[edit on 12-12-2004 by Countermeasures]



posted on Dec, 12 2004 @ 05:40 AM
link   
If it (Iraq War) were oil then why not Nigeria? Nigeria produces 2 million barrels per day versus Iraq at 2.5 million.

Nigeria probably would have been much easier for the U.S. to conquer- but this is hindsight. Iraq 1 (daddy Bush) was a fluke. The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait caused that war I believe. If the Iraq conquest scenario (by the U.S.) were to acquire oil then why did Iraq 1 stop? The northern third and southern third were anti-Saddam, the coalition (a true one then) was at the Baghdad bridges and entry/conquest would have been accomplished within days. Kurdish areas could easily have been broken from Iraq and this is the area of at least one third of Iraq's oil.

I agree that something else is afoot,
History of the Iraq war 1

On July 16, a meeting of OPEC ("Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries") in Geneva ended with Iraq once more threatening military force against Kuwait for exceeding production quotas and for violating the agreement on drilling rights in the Rumaila oil field, . . . Iraq charged Kuwait with cheating: taking more than its fair share of the oil in the field by using slant drilling techniques. Iraq further complained that Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates had refused to cancel Iraqs debts from its war with Iran.

The next day, July 17, Saddam threatened to use force against any Arab oil exporters who refused to abide by their production quotas. The day after this threat, July 18, Saddam massed 30,000 Iraqi troops on his border with Kuwait. The U.S. Senate voted sanctions against Iraq.

On July 25, . . . Saddam was told by U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie, in a meeting in Baghdad that the United States had "no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait."

Iraqi and Kuwaiti emissaries held talks in Jedda, Saudi Arabia on July 31 and August 1, but the talks collapsed when Kuwait reportedly refused to write off billions of dollars of Iraqi war debts and relinquish disputed territory.

-further-

On September 23, 1990, U.S. Secretary of State James Baker testified before a congressional committee that the United States sought a "permanent military presence" in the Gulf. What was not elaborated at the hearing was the fact that the United States had been trying for years to establish a permanent center for military operations in the Gulf region, an effort which naturally had been rebuffed by the Arabs.


On March 6, 1991, U.S. President Bush, in a speech to a joint session of Congress, proclaimed that the era of a "new world order" had begun.

Not Democracy, it is CONTROL



posted on Dec, 12 2004 @ 05:54 AM
link   
The IRANIANS are acting as if they are doing us a favor by discontinuing their nuclear program. Just because America wants to talk doesn't mean that we are weak and too stretched to pummel them into oblivion. The Iranians should consider American offer of discontinuing their nuclear program as an American warning and should [ if they want to preserve their way of life] comply as early as possible and to the fullest.

The free and civilized world has lost its patience with these fundamentalist madmen and by offering to talk with them only means that we want to give them a chance to rectify their ways- it is not a sign of weakness.

In my opinion the US should stop utilizing the marines and wasting so many resources to fight these fundamentalists we should just declare to the world that any nation that does not comply to UNSC doctrine will face preemptive nuclear strike
- that way we would save more money and the lives of our marines and send across a clear message that we mean business and no more dealing with insurgents and their savagery. we wouldn't even need to go to Iran we could just fire one thermonuclear war head at Tehran and wait and see if the Iranians comply, if they don't we could fire another the next day until they finally comply because they would realize that if they do not comply their would not be a country or religion to fight for!
They want to see EXTREEMISM we can show them EXTREEMISM. The problem is that we are dealing with extremists with moderation, we should deal with extremists with Extremism so that we make terrorism so horrific to them that they themselves start clamping down on their own terrorists in an desperate attempt to survive. The only reason organizations like AL Qaeda exist is because they are supported by governments that are against Liberty and Freedom so it is up to the freedom loving people of the world to show them that if we want to be extreme we can be soo extreme that their will not be any of you to respond to our terrorism
.

Hey! that's just my opinion but what do I know!


Sep

posted on Dec, 12 2004 @ 06:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by IAF101
The only reason organizations like AL Qaeda exist is because they are supported by governments that are against Liberty and Freedom


I could not possibly agree more.


American governments should really stop supporting, training and financing terrorists whenever it suits them best, because one day these terrorists will turn against them and the whole world.

[edit on 12-12-2004 by Sep]


Sep

posted on Dec, 12 2004 @ 06:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by IAF101
The IRANIANS are acting as if they are doing us a favor by discontinuing their nuclear program.


They are. Even though the US government has shown its double standards and Iran is clearly not violating any law, they have signed additional protocols even though they didint have to.


Just because America wants to talk doesn't mean that we are weak and too stretched to pummel them into oblivion.


America has not talked to Iran for a while now. Neither side wants to talk to the other. I dont quite know what you mean when you say "America wants to talk" since the US isnt talking.



The Iranians should consider American offer of discontinuing their nuclear program as an American warning and should [ if they want to preserve their way of life] comply as early as possible and to the fullest.


Or they could just follow the rules set by the US and other former superpowers. Change the laws if you think they are so wrong. It is Iran's rights to have nuclear technology and it is also their right to pull out of the NPT.


The free and civilized world has lost its patience with these fundamentalist madmen and by offering to talk with them only means that we want to give them a chance to rectify their ways- it is not a sign of weakness.


Do you expect an answer? "free and civilized", what a joke. "fundamentalist madmen", the US government is filled with them. And again you are not talking to the Iranians.


In my opinion the US should stop utilizing the marines and wasting so many resources to fight these fundamentalists we should just declare to the world that any nation that does not comply to UNSC doctrine will face preemptive nuclear strike
-


Hopfully you will never get any jobs in any government. I would say what I think but last time I got warned for it.


that way we would save more money and the lives of our marines and send across a clear message that we mean business and no more dealing with insurgents and their savagery.


You are a living proof of why Iran need nukes.


we wouldn't even need to go to Iran we could just fire one thermonuclear war head at Tehran and wait and see if the Iranians comply, if they don't we could fire another the next day until they finally comply because they would realize that if they do not comply their would not be a country or religion to fight for!


I think that might justify Iran allowing terrorists to get a full access to Iranian CBW. But again this is never going to happen because all countries have a great system of keeping people like you out of power.


They want to see EXTREEMISM we can show them EXTREEMISM.


Fair enough
In these circumstances I ussually get angry but you are not worth it.


The problem is that we are dealing with extremists with moderation


You call killing 100000 innocent people moderation? If your family was one of them you might have a diffrent view.


we should deal with extremists with Extremism so that we make terrorism so horrific to them that they themselves start clamping down on their own terrorists in an desperate attempt to survive.


Again, thank God you are a nobody.



it is up to the freedom loving people of the world to show them that if we want to be extreme we can be soo extreme that their will not be any of you to respond to our terrorism
.


"Freedom loving people" will not become extremists and drop nukes on cities and kill innocent civilians. That would be a wet dream of a twisted little psycho.


Hey! that's just my opinion but what do I know!


You have the right to your opinion.



posted on Dec, 12 2004 @ 07:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by IAF101we should just declare to the world that any nation that does not comply to UNSC doctrine will face preemptive nuclear strike
-


Iran is complying with the UNSC.
The UNSC allows Uranium enrichment.

Israel, if the US did not VETO other UN members, would be in violation of the UN on many issues. Should you preemptively nuke them?

[edit on 12-12-2004 by AceOfBase]



posted on Dec, 12 2004 @ 07:33 AM
link   
Irans mullahs are just plain EVIL small men who want to hold on to there "power". Maybe I can get some of my bio buddies to come up with a Mullah specific "virus". That would save a lot of good plutonium for future use.



posted on Dec, 12 2004 @ 07:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrHoracid
Irans mullahs are just plain EVIL small men who want to hold on to there "power". Maybe I can get some of my bio buddies to come up with a Mullah specific "virus". That would save a lot of good plutonium for future use.


You call them evil and yet you are calling for a biologically induced holocaust and there are others calling for Iran to be nuked.

It seems as if the evil lies in the West not the Mid East.



posted on Dec, 12 2004 @ 07:51 AM
link   
I love American simplicity-IAF101

The only reason organizations like AL Qaeda exist is because they are supported by governments that are against Liberty and Freedom so it is up to the freedom loving people of the world to show them that if we want to be extreme we can be soo extreme that their will not be any of you to respond to our terrorism

Become so thoroughly terroristic that even terrorists fear you!

There is a certain 'logic' to this


I wished the U.S. would just make it all simple- tell the Israelis and Mid-East Moslems that the parlor games are over. The U.S. will occupy and enforce present boundaries, blockade them completely and freedom and self-determination are illusions. Every suicide bomber brings a leader to the gallows for everyone killed. Make a list of the leadership of each country and randomly select gallows slots after every attack. Public executions and leave them hanging for the birds to pick.

This would end all this hand-wringing and worry.



posted on Dec, 12 2004 @ 08:20 AM
link   
Douglas J. Feith....who better than the one America's most influential Zionists to say that Iran is on the table?

Iran will be a thousand times worse than Iraq for the Americans.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join