It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
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.
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 Iraq’s 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.
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.
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
Originally posted by IAF101
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.
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!
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 -
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.
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