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.

 

Leaked Draft of Iran Nuke Deal

page: 4
5
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 07:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: Kapusta

Cherry picking so lame as well.
I just tell you what I know to be true.


how do you know what you know is true ?





posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 07:53 PM
link   
Here is what you do when attacking iran even if they have nuclear weapons. First disable their communications with a Small EMP device over their country or just in Teran where the leadership resides by cruise missile. Immediatly after that cruise missiles hit primary targets such as refineries,oil production,water and gasoline reserves and the homes of the leadership in iran cutting off the head of the chicken.

After that wave target the nuclear facilities pre targeted by sats looking for nuclear weapon signatures. the whole operation hinges on the EMP attack to allow the stealth bombers to come in and drop the nuclear bunker busters.



posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 08:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Kapusta

I was in the army at the time as a scout after the incidents in berlin and Joined when our Marines got hit in Beruit.
RECONNAISSANCE was the job.
It was in security reports,NOT the news..
Iran would attack through one of the clients as THAT is the idea in the first place ,you wouldn't think they would allow themselves to be TARGETED do you?
I can't tell you all about Israel other than what is in media and I don't trust much of it.
THEY do run commando missions but HELL so does the SAS all the time.
We reconcgnized them first so I guess we are in bed with them.
Conspiracies abound but we have NO allies in the area other than them.
Maybe Islam will fix the Wahhabist/Shia mess ,then the big bad death machine would lose steam pursuing a continued fight in the ME.
edit on 19-3-2015 by cavtrooper7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 08:49 PM
link   
a reply to: cavtrooper7

Can't argue that.

But the overall mess still starts with the Brits. From the canal to the break-up of the Ottoman Empire.



posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 08:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: cavtrooper7

Can't argue that.

But the overall mess still starts with the Brits. From the canal to the break-up of the Ottoman Empire.




The mess started when a certain prophet appeared.


That was long long long before the Brits got involved.



posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 08:58 PM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

It's like talking in circles. A waste of time.

I'M not calling for war. I'm calling to prevent an inevitable conclusion to continued appeasement/proliferation. A point you totally ignore.

Your views increases the likelihood of war. Once more a nuclear armed Iran is worse than one not so armed.

They must have amended your freaking history books. The Ottoman empire? The insane creation of Iraq and neighbors?

Saudi Arabia? Hello? The there's the damn canal that you had to keep out of any one power just for your international shipping.

Don't talk to me about history books. You wankers to a bad situation and made it FUBARED!!

Forced you out? After your stirring the doo-doo between the Soviets and the U.S., you bailed! Left us with it...BAH...LOL



posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 10:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok
And what right does America have to dictate another sovereigns country's energy policy?

None. As long as Iran understands if they ever try to develop missiles capable of reaching the US they will be obliterated. If America is ever attacked by any dirty bomb with even the smallest chance Iran helped it happen, they will be obliterated.



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 01:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Kapusta

Have a look...medium.com...
A description of an IRANIAN armed group .
edit on 20-3-2015 by cavtrooper7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 08:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker
It's like talking in circles. A waste of time.

I know the feeling.......



originally posted by: nwtrucker
I'M not calling for war. I'm calling to prevent an inevitable conclusion to continued appeasement/proliferation. A point you totally ignore.

then what are you calling for?

More strongly worded letters?



originally posted by: nwtrucker
Your views increases the likelihood of war. Once more a nuclear armed Iran is worse than one not so armed.

Im not entirely happy with a "nuclear Iran" but if you crack down on them then do you agree that we have to crack down on North Korea, Israel, India and Pakistan who have unregulated and illegal nukes?

It seems hypocritical to single one particular country out wheh 4 others are doing the exact same thing!

Its called equal application of law.

If that happens I would maybe be more sympathetic to action in Iran.

BUT

I dont see enough evidence that Iran does or will have Nuclear weapons.

Certainly not enough for military action.

And you can blame your beloved Bush and Netanyahu and our Blair for crying wolf on that in the past with Iraq. And the whole "Iran is 1 year away from the bomb!" talk starting in the freaking 80's.




originally posted by: nwtrucker
They must have amended your freaking history books. The Ottoman empire? The insane creation of Iraq and neighbors?

Saudi Arabia? Hello? The there's the damn canal that you had to keep out of any one power just for your international shipping.




Im not denying the UK introduced its own problems to the ME.

But the ottoman empire and the preceding caliphates were not exactly innocent and problem free either.

USA has not exactly made the situation better either has it?
edit on 20-3-2015 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 11:28 AM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker
Also while we are on the topic of false outrage and hypocrisy lets compare 2 country's shall we?

READ CAREFULLY


Iran & North Korea


Iran: Deny having or wanting Nuclear weapons.

North Korea: Shout it from the roof tops they have nukes. Along with Chemical Weapons.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Iran: Apart from centrifuges and the word of Netanyahu there is no concrete proof

North Korea: Have tested two nukes and defectors and intelligence confirm they have maybe up to 20 now.
Possible have bio weapons too.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Iran: Has made some vague ambiguous threats to Israel that most translators agree seem to refer to the Zionist government and not to the Jewish people in General. And don't seem to imply military annihilation. source

North Korea: Threatens South Korea with Invasion and annihilation every other day and Japan. All in direct and non ambiguous terms
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Iran: Has not threatened the USA

North Korea: Has threatened to nuke the USA and has even released a map with the nuclear landing sit es


-------------------------------------------------------------------
Iran: Has a space program so possible ICBM tec

North Korea: Actively testing ICBM's (with not much success :roll




So..............................

What country do you think is more of a threat? Iran or North Korea?


I would 100% say North Korea

So why do you and your republican masters ignore North Korea and concentrate on possible military action in Iran?

Should not North Korea be first on the worlds hit list if we are taking out dangerous rogue nuclear states?
edit on 20-3-2015 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 01:51 PM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

Nukes are bad..... mmmmmkay?

Isnt it bad enough with all the nations that already have nukes?

So whats your take on all this (in a sentence or two)! ?



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 01:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: combatmaster
a reply to: crazyewok

Nukes are bad..... mmmmmkay?

Isnt it bad enough with all the nations that already have nukes?

So whats your take on all this (in a sentence or two)! ?


My take is I would be far more worried at North Korea than Iran.

And if we are going stomp around the globe bombing people I would rather start with North Korea Nukes.

International law should apply to all equally. We should not single out Iran but let other rogue nuclear states off the hook.



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 02:07 PM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

I agree,

but the problem is that N korea already have nukes. so its a big risk.

But Iran can still be stopped from acquiring nukes.



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 02:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: combatmaster
a reply to: crazyewok

I agree,

but the problem is that N korea already have nukes. so its a big risk.

But Iran can still be stopped from acquiring nukes.


That is cowardly.

Picking who the law apply too due to who is the "weakest".



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 02:28 PM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok
Even more cowardly...

Watching the world's largest arms dealer scold others about proliferation...and agreeing with it.



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 02:33 PM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

Are you saying that its a good idea to let Iran have nukes then? a regime that hangs people for the crime of being gay?
simple question!
yes or no?



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 02:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: combatmaster
a reply to: crazyewok

Are you saying that its a good idea to let Iran have nukes then? a regime that hangs people for the crime of being gay?
simple question!
yes or no?


How Iran treats its gays is irrelevant to it owning nukes.

BUT

And I will counter is it a good idea to let North Korea have nukes when they imprison people in concentration camps?


No to Iran and No to North Korea.


But I wont support a war in Iran.

End of.

Especially when evidence of Iran having nukes is far from concrete.

Not when other rogue states have nuclear weapons and have threatened to actually use them and we wont touch them.


Its equal application of law or none at all.



edit on 20-3-2015 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 02:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: combatmaster
a reply to: crazyewok

Are you saying that its a good idea to let Iran have nukes then? a regime that hangs people for the crime of being gay?
simple question!
yes or no?


And I will ask you this.

Do you support a war in Iran with the current half baked evidence we had from the same people who gave us Iraq?

do you view Iran as more of a threat than North Korea who are actually threatening to nuke you and do 100% have nukes?



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 03:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: combatmaster
Are you saying that its a good idea to let Iran have nukes then?

Since Iran doesn't currently have them, and no actual report shows them even starting to make them, your question is moot.

Is it a good idea for Iran to develop nuclear technologies? Yes. Even better if we help them. Not only does this assist in the advancement of human technology as a whole, peace has always come faster through co-operation than through division.

You can continue on with the reductio ad absurdum if you would like, but please note that you currently look crazier than any Iranian leader.



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 05:33 PM
link   
a reply to: peck420
a reply to: crazyewok



How Iran treats its gays is irrelevant to it owning nukes.


I disagree, your logic is warped! If you actually believe that, then I cannot help you.





Since Iran doesn't currently have them, and no actual report shows them even starting to make them, your question is moot.


Its that kind of logic that lead to N Korea being armed! dont question until its too late!

But hey..... whatever pleases ya!



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join