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.

 

Obama KNEW All Along Netanyahu Was Right About Iran

page: 11
33
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 23 2015 @ 01:22 PM
link   
a reply to: jaffo

And had we not hit them with Stuxnet. . . they would probably have a nuke right now, which WAS A STATED GOAL OF IRAN.




posted on Apr, 23 2015 @ 02:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: jaffo

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: ketsuko
OK, why is our Intel always 2 to 3 months for one? Why does Obama feel so sure that allowing Iran to do whatever it wants is the right way to go?

If he feels that way, why doesn't he just make his case instead of lying about it? The lie makes me think he either isn't so sure or has something in mind that he knows most people would never stand for but he doesn't care.


Even if this was all true, I suggest you look at the history of Iranian aggression. It becomes clear that they are not the aggressors overall over the past 50 years. It's the west, actually.

So then, WHY are we demonizing them? Only one reason, geo-political hegemony, the desire to knock out all resistors in the ME and allies of Russia. Boom.


Well, that and their constant referral to the US as The Great Satan and their stated desire to "eradicate Israel from the face of the Earth." I mean, other than that, you're completely on point. SMH. . .


Point 1: "Great Satan." You do realize that the US overthrew through the CIA their democratically elected government in the 50's, right? Installing the Shah afterwards? You would think the US was Great Satan I bet too. But I am sure that you are one of those people who think that no matter what the west does to developing nations, "how dare they be angry?"

Point 2: The "eradicate Israel" statement has been demonstrated to be a out of context or not accurate attribution, correct?

Point 3: Who keeps on threatening Iran over 50 years? Why, the West and Israel. I hope that you realize that the US fully supported Saddam Hussein in attacking Iran during the 80's. There is even evidence that US intelligence provided targeting information for Saddam's chemical weapon attacks on Iran...

Care to try anything else?
edit on 23-4-2015 by Quetzalcoatl14 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2015 @ 02:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: jaffo

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: ketsuko
OK, why is our Intel always 2 to 3 months for one? Why does Obama feel so sure that allowing Iran to do whatever it wants is the right way to go?

If he feels that way, why doesn't he just make his case instead of lying about it? The lie makes me think he either isn't so sure or has something in mind that he knows most people would never stand for but he doesn't care.


Even if this was all true, I suggest you look at the history of Iranian aggression. It becomes clear that they are not the aggressors overall over the past 50 years. It's the west, actually.

So then, WHY are we demonizing them? Only one reason, geo-political hegemony, the desire to knock out all resistors in the ME and allies of Russia. Boom.


Well, that and their constant referral to the US as The Great Satan and their stated desire to "eradicate Israel from the face of the Earth." I mean, other than that, you're completely on point. SMH. . .


Point 1: "Great Satan." You do realize that the US overthrew through the CIA their democratically elected government in the 50's, right? Installing the Shah afterwards? You would think the US was Great Satan I bet too. But I am sure that you are one of those people who think that no matter what the west does to developing nations, "how dare they be angry?"

Point 2: The "eradicate Israel" statement has been demonstrated to be a out of context or not accurate attribution, correct?

Point 3: Who keeps on threatening Iran over 50 years? Why, the West and Israel. I hope that you realize that the US fully supported Saddam Hussein in attacking Iran during the 80's. There is even evidence that US intelligence provided targeting information for Saddam's chemical weapon attacks on Iran...

Care to try anything else?


I am aware of all of those things. You want to keep living in the past? Go for it. Please. I get it, Iran is an innocent little lamb. And no, the threats against Israel are real, documented, and continuing.



posted on Apr, 23 2015 @ 02:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: jaffo

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: jaffo

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: ketsuko
OK, why is our Intel always 2 to 3 months for one? Why does Obama feel so sure that allowing Iran to do whatever it wants is the right way to go?

If he feels that way, why doesn't he just make his case instead of lying about it? The lie makes me think he either isn't so sure or has something in mind that he knows most people would never stand for but he doesn't care.


Even if this was all true, I suggest you look at the history of Iranian aggression. It becomes clear that they are not the aggressors overall over the past 50 years. It's the west, actually.

So then, WHY are we demonizing them? Only one reason, geo-political hegemony, the desire to knock out all resistors in the ME and allies of Russia. Boom.


Well, that and their constant referral to the US as The Great Satan and their stated desire to "eradicate Israel from the face of the Earth." I mean, other than that, you're completely on point. SMH. . .


Point 1: "Great Satan." You do realize that the US overthrew through the CIA their democratically elected government in the 50's, right? Installing the Shah afterwards? You would think the US was Great Satan I bet too. But I am sure that you are one of those people who think that no matter what the west does to developing nations, "how dare they be angry?"

Point 2: The "eradicate Israel" statement has been demonstrated to be a out of context or not accurate attribution, correct?

Point 3: Who keeps on threatening Iran over 50 years? Why, the West and Israel. I hope that you realize that the US fully supported Saddam Hussein in attacking Iran during the 80's. There is even evidence that US intelligence provided targeting information for Saddam's chemical weapon attacks on Iran...

Care to try anything else?


I am aware of all of those things. You want to keep living in the past? Go for it. Please. I get it, Iran is an innocent little lamb. And no, the threats against Israel are real, documented, and continuing.


I agree that none of this means that Iran is innocent in the greater scheme, or not an entity to keep an eye on. I'm not naive.

However, at some point, the West and its allies don't really have credibility if they are the greater aggressors.

Something that the West needs to get is that small developing countries have a MAJOR incentive to GET nuclear weapons when the West has a history of invading, conquering, regime changing, etc, weaker countries that DON'T have nuclear weapons. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

We can't expect weaker countries to not take measures to protect themselves as long as we are acting as a global empire.

That, is wisdom.

Now, if the West or similar powers had not been bullying smaller countries, including Iran's allies, for decades, then we would thereby be in an ethical position to question arms races in these parts. Unfortunately, we are not. Do you see what I mean?



posted on Apr, 23 2015 @ 03:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

I completely get the desire for the weapons. But no one new needs to be in the nuclear club. They're just bad news. Hell, the US gets pretty much ZERO credit for never using ours again after the end of WWII even though it would have been so very easy to do so on many occasions. Do you think for one minute that Iran or Iraq or any other number of Nations would not have used them by now against their enemies or Israel if they had them? Come on, be honest.



posted on Apr, 23 2015 @ 03:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
OK, why is our Intel always 2 to 3 months for one? Why does Obama feel so sure that allowing Iran to do whatever it wants is the right way to go?

If he feels that way, why doesn't he just make his case instead of lying about it? The lie makes me think he either isn't so sure or has something in mind that he knows most people would never stand for but he doesn't care.


Lead your enemy into a false sense of security. Make it feel like you are weak on your policy. When you take the bait, the wrath of the mighty falls upon you. You get public opinion on your side as an added benefit. This had been in the cards for a long time and they didn't like being behind schedule.



posted on Apr, 23 2015 @ 03:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: LOSTinAMERICA

originally posted by: ketsuko
OK, why is our Intel always 2 to 3 months for one? Why does Obama feel so sure that allowing Iran to do whatever it wants is the right way to go?

If he feels that way, why doesn't he just make his case instead of lying about it? The lie makes me think he either isn't so sure or has something in mind that he knows most people would never stand for but he doesn't care.


Lead your enemy into a false sense of security. Make it feel like you are weak on your policy. When you take the bait, the wrath of the mighty falls upon you. You get public opinion on your side as an added benefit. This had been in the cards for a long time and they didn't like being behind schedule.


I have no idea what conspiracy you are trying to promote or explain here. Obama has pretty much ZERO foreign policy and even less of an agenda abroad. His agenda has been and continues to be destroying America from within. . .



posted on Apr, 23 2015 @ 03:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: jaffo

originally posted by: LOSTinAMERICA

originally posted by: ketsuko
OK, why is our Intel always 2 to 3 months for one? Why does Obama feel so sure that allowing Iran to do whatever it wants is the right way to go?

If he feels that way, why doesn't he just make his case instead of lying about it? The lie makes me think he either isn't so sure or has something in mind that he knows most people would never stand for but he doesn't care.


Lead your enemy into a false sense of security. Make it feel like you are weak on your policy. When you take the bait, the wrath of the mighty falls upon you. You get public opinion on your side as an added benefit. This had been in the cards for a long time and they didn't like being behind schedule.


I have no idea what conspiracy you are trying to promote or explain here. Obama has pretty much ZERO foreign policy and even less of an agenda abroad. His agenda has been and continues to be destroying America from within. . .


You really think Obama runs this # still?



posted on Apr, 23 2015 @ 03:26 PM
link   
Let me shoot out a scenario for you. If Obama was rocking the boat and most people who have influence and power were upset with him, what do you think would happen? You can dig up Kennedy if you want the inside scoop.
edit on 23-4-2015 by LOSTinAMERICA because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-4-2015 by LOSTinAMERICA because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2015 @ 03:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: LOSTinAMERICA
Let me shoot out a scenario for you. If Obama was rocking the boat and most people who have influence and power were upset with him, what do you think would happen? You can dig up Kennedy if you want the inside scoop.


Please don't bore me with hypotheticals and telling me to Google things. Spell it out or GTFO, dude.



posted on Apr, 23 2015 @ 03:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: jaffo
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

I completely get the desire for the weapons. But no one new needs to be in the nuclear club. They're just bad news. Hell, the US gets pretty much ZERO credit for never using ours again after the end of WWII even though it would have been so very easy to do so on many occasions. Do you think for one minute that Iran or Iraq or any other number of Nations would not have used them by now against their enemies or Israel if they had them? Come on, be honest.


I agree with you that it is not good for more countries to join the nuclear club. I agree with non-proliferation. But again, if the west and other powers (China, Russia, and so on) were serious about that they would have to not only slowly eliminate nukes but also not act in a way that incentivizes or almost necessitates that weaker countries acquire nukes. What other choice do you have if you know that you can never fight off the superpowers with conventional warfare?

I'm not sure, however, that Iran would preemptively use nukes on Israel or another country. They know that they would be obliterated by Israeli or western nukes. They aren't suicidal.
edit on 23-4-2015 by Quetzalcoatl14 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2015 @ 04:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: jaffo
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

I completely get the desire for the weapons. But no one new needs to be in the nuclear club. They're just bad news. Hell, the US gets pretty much ZERO credit for never using ours again after the end of WWII even though it would have been so very easy to do so on many occasions. Do you think for one minute that Iran or Iraq or any other number of Nations would not have used them by now against their enemies or Israel if they had them? Come on, be honest.


I agree with you that it is not good for more countries to join the nuclear club. I agree with non-proliferation. But again, if the west and other powers (China, Russia, and so on) were serious about that they would have to not only slowly eliminate nukes but also not act in a way that incentivizes or almost necessitates that weaker countries acquire nukes. What else choice do you have if you know that you can never fight off the superpowers with conventional warfare?

I'm not sure, however, that Iran would preemptively use nukes on Israel or another country. They know that they would be obliterated by Israeli or western nukes. They aren't suicidal.


And that right there? That fear of obliteration? That is why we keep our nukes. Love us or hate us, our massive arsenal stops a lot of wars before they start, you know?



posted on Apr, 23 2015 @ 05:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: jaffo

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: jaffo
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

I completely get the desire for the weapons. But no one new needs to be in the nuclear club. They're just bad news. Hell, the US gets pretty much ZERO credit for never using ours again after the end of WWII even though it would have been so very easy to do so on many occasions. Do you think for one minute that Iran or Iraq or any other number of Nations would not have used them by now against their enemies or Israel if they had them? Come on, be honest.


I agree with you that it is not good for more countries to join the nuclear club. I agree with non-proliferation. But again, if the west and other powers (China, Russia, and so on) were serious about that they would have to not only slowly eliminate nukes but also not act in a way that incentivizes or almost necessitates that weaker countries acquire nukes. What else choice do you have if you know that you can never fight off the superpowers with conventional warfare?

I'm not sure, however, that Iran would preemptively use nukes on Israel or another country. They know that they would be obliterated by Israeli or western nukes. They aren't suicidal.


And that right there? That fear of obliteration? That is why we keep our nukes. Love us or hate us, our massive arsenal stops a lot of wars before they start, you know?


True, which I wouldn't have a problem with if we didn't couple that with basically empire building. So, we use conventional weaponry or CIA actions to stomp on most countries that oppose us. And then, in the rafters are much more powerful weapons as a last resort.



posted on Apr, 24 2015 @ 12:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: jaffo
a reply to: jaffo

And had we not hit them with Stuxnet. . . they would probably have a nuke right now, which WAS A STATED GOAL OF IRAN.
Please don't CAPS LOCK US TO DEATH , man !!

STATED GOAL OF IRAN ? stated goal of Iran was to make nukes ?

holy schnitzels , i seen new statements made by non-existant officials of Iran everyday . Tnx for being the salt to this tasteless thread .



posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 09:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: jaffo
a reply to: jaffo

And had we not hit them with Stuxnet. . . they would probably have a nuke right now, which WAS A STATED GOAL OF IRAN.


Holly Cow, did you just start quoting yourself?!

It is sad that except your misunderstanding of facts and history mixed with tainted media coverage you were unable to give anything good to this discussion.

Now let me tell ya what I really think about nuclear power(s) and weapons. All should be destroyed by mutual agreement among all nations, but as large amount of nuclear research covers medicine, that should be allowed to all, not just be solely owned by biggest sellers (in this case us, USA).

As for energy produced from nuclear power, I hope we don't make any more nuclear plants with current technology. Scientists are working on better use and new way of producing power, that would not produce nuclear waste, witch is one of biggest issues of today world. Actually, this new research will use current stockpile of waste as fuel. This has been highly supported by Bill Gate and might bring us to point where we produce enough energy for whole world.




posted on Apr, 27 2015 @ 10:04 AM
link   
So you are now trying to say that Iran never once said they desired nuclear weapons? Really?



posted on Apr, 27 2015 @ 10:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: jaffo
So you are now trying to say that Iran never once said they desired nuclear weapons? Really?

Yeah really .

What do you see on Tv and Media about Iran ? Nuke , blah blah , oppression blah blah . hezbollah and hamas blah .



posted on Apr, 27 2015 @ 12:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: haman10

originally posted by: jaffo
So you are now trying to say that Iran never once said they desired nuclear weapons? Really?

Yeah really .

What do you see on Tv and Media about Iran ? Nuke , blah blah , oppression blah blah . hezbollah and hamas blah .



That's called "hand waving" and it is certainly not a valid argument. Essentially, you are trying to say that you personally somehow have a lock on the truth and that any public forum available to everyone else is all lies. Weak. And certainly not denying ignorance.



posted on Apr, 27 2015 @ 01:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: jaffo

originally posted by: haman10

originally posted by: jaffo
So you are now trying to say that Iran never once said they desired nuclear weapons? Really?

Yeah really .

What do you see on Tv and Media about Iran ? Nuke , blah blah , oppression blah blah . hezbollah and hamas blah .



That's called "hand waving" and it is certainly not a valid argument. Essentially, you are trying to say that you personally somehow have a lock on the truth and that any public forum available to everyone else is all lies. Weak. And certainly not denying ignorance.
it's the truth . care to share what you know about Iran in 2 sentences ?

You're the one who said that Iran "claimed they want to make nukes" and yet i'm the one whose ignorant .

Well , okey .



posted on Apr, 27 2015 @ 01:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: haman10

originally posted by: jaffo

originally posted by: haman10

originally posted by: jaffo
So you are now trying to say that Iran never once said they desired nuclear weapons? Really?

Yeah really .

What do you see on Tv and Media about Iran ? Nuke , blah blah , oppression blah blah . hezbollah and hamas blah .



That's called "hand waving" and it is certainly not a valid argument. Essentially, you are trying to say that you personally somehow have a lock on the truth and that any public forum available to everyone else is all lies. Weak. And certainly not denying ignorance.
it's the truth . care to share what you know about Iran in 2 sentences ?

You're the one who said that Iran "claimed they want to make nukes" and yet i'm the one whose ignorant .

Well , okey .


The burden is not on me here, it's on you. Stop changing the subject and moving the goal posts, please.



new topics

top topics



 
33
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join