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.

 

House rejects Iran nuclear deal

page: 4
10
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 12 2015 @ 07:48 AM
link   
Haman, I appreciate your coming on line and having a conversation with us, and I always want to believe everything you say, you've no idea. (Actually I kind of do.)

If Khomeini would keep his big trap shut and Netanyahu would stuff a sock in his big pie-hole, we might see some improvements and a lessening of the paranoia which permeates the areas.

Let's do some good in the world today!




posted on Sep, 12 2015 @ 07:48 AM
link   
I don't think the Iranians want nukes. In the past their clergy issued a fatwa (religious injunction) against acquiring them. It was later rescinded and then reinstated, I believe. Whatever the current religious policy on the matter, it is clear that, at the least, there is ambivalence in Iran on the question.

The issue of nuclear weapons is complicated. They were developed in WW2 during a very serious confrontation between several of the so called "Great Powers". During the Cold War that followed, an arms race resulted in massive stockpiles of the weapons, enough to decimate the world's population, if not wipe it out completely.

The Great Powers then attempted treaties to limit and eventually to reduce numbers of nuclear weapons. The weapons were acknowledged to be too destructive and the balance of military power had created a situation of "mutually assured destruction", MAD, in the event of general war.

In the wake of all this, two worrisome developments occurred. One was the proliferation of nuclear weapons to Great Powers that did not yet have them and, largely for prestige reasons, desired to have them, followed by further proliferation to secondary powers who saw themselves as "great powers", followed by proliferation to rogue powers who wanted them for dubious reasons related to national psychological abnormalities.

(In my personal opinion, the only state in the world today with a legitimate reason to have nuclear weapons is the one that has them but won't admit to it and is in real danger of being overrun without them. We all know who that is.)

The second worrisome development was the attempt by science to hang on to nuclear weapons as an option in war by miniaturizing them or by using them in imaginative ways that might vitiate their destructive power. Suitcase bombs, nuclear artillery shells, neutron bombs, high altitude EMP detonations, etc., including the widespread use of depleted uranium tank armor and armor piercing ammunition.

The situation with Pakistan and India is very illustrative of the importance of psychology as a factor in nuclear proliferation. Neither of these countries should have nuclear weapons. Neither one needs nuclear weapons. Neither country is in danger of being invaded and taken over by anyone. Neither one will use nuclear weapons to resolve relatively insignificant border issues with other countries that they are squabbling with (each other, China).

India got them because India wanted to be thought of as an emerging Great Power. Emerging executives buy a Porche Carrera. India played Canada for simple suckers and used a CANDU reactor to enrich plutonium, and the rest, as they say, is human folly. Pakistan got them for "keeping up with the Jones's reasons", like a junior exec who goes without at home so he can have a Porche too. Neither country could or would use the weapons in war. The results would be completely catastrophic for both sides. They are a costly and dangerous boondoggle.

The Iranians, unlike the North Koreans, are not stupid. At the end of the day, as the CIA has pointed out, they are rational. I think the penny has dropped for them. They know that in practical terms, for them, nuclear weapons are useless.

I'm not trying to say that nuclear issues are not important or that one shouldn't be concerned about proliferation. After all, for every Iran that is rational, there is a potential North Korea under the thumb of a criminal clique.

This creates problems for politicians involved in the Iran issue to make rational points in the face of fear and hysteria being whipped up by the country has been bottling and exporting fear and hysteria since 1948.

This country is afraid of Iranian meddling in its affairs and has chosen to create a nuclear caricature of Iran that is easy for other countries to fear as well, rather than sticking to the truth about Iran. Israel's real aim is not to keep Iranians from getting nuclear weapons, because Israel knows Iran doesn't want nuclear weapons. Israel's real aim is to keep the sanctions regime against Iran in place (under the anti-nuke pretext) in order to limit the amount of discretionary spending that Iran can direct toward the support of Hezbollah.

It's a good trick and is being aided by the world press, that doesn't want to expose the gambit for what it is. Imagine that.

I think the United States, at least the Obama administration, has reached a limit in the degree to which it is willing to defend Israel. The Obama administration would like rapprochement with Iran. Other ways will have to be found to help Israel deal with Hezbollah. The Iran nuke panic is a red herring that causes too much avoidable trouble in a relationship that America would like to normalize.



posted on Sep, 12 2015 @ 07:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: PutinTheGreat
a reply to: Reallyfolks

Yes it's all politics. Actually do something or shut up basically is my view on the situation. The Iran deal is good for business though so if we are heading towards nuclear war at least some money can be made before that day happens. I sincerely hope the Iranian government isn't crazy but only time will tell. If they are crazy inaction is the wrong choice, the deal whether it is upheld or scrapped is irrelevant if they truly are crazy enough to desire nukes and nuclear confrontation.





I understand that I also as I stated there's a reason that even though it's worthless the NPT covers three methods to nukes, why the deal covers one is anyone's guess. But in the end doesn't matter. Politicians and friends in the favor system will benefit , the rest will benefit none but we will continue to argue as if anything but our feelings. Will change. Iran and the US will continue to wage war, we just don't see the bombs, guns, and troops so will tell ourselves there isn't one. The power of self deception and denial are amazing qualities we all have.
edit on 12-9-2015 by Reallyfolks because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2015 @ 08:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
But shouldn't the opposite also hold true? American lawmakers have threatened attacks on Iran for years.


Threats to attack and threats to retaliate are two different things.

"Death to America" does not equal "If they try anything the US Military will turn the sand under their feet to glass."


Netanyahu has threatened attacks on Iran for years, too.


In response to "Drive Israel into the sea!"


Israel & the US were responsible for the Stuxnet attacks on Iran several years ago & even assassinated Iranian nuclear scientists.


You have proof the US was involved in either of those?


And don't forget, both the US & Israel actually have nuclear weapons.


Is there some concern that the US or Israel would actually use those weapons for any reason but retaliation?

The US and Israel don't chant 'death to Iran' nor do they send proxy terrorists into other countries. At most the US arms and trains natives to defend their own land.

There is serious concern that Iran would smuggle a nuclear bomb into another country via their proxies.



posted on Sep, 12 2015 @ 09:23 AM
link   
Iran is being set up and played by the Obama admin.They are giving Iran one last chance and Iran is never going to obey this agreement.
So Iran will face war with the NWO agenda that is being pushed.What it realy is.



posted on Sep, 12 2015 @ 09:51 AM
link   
a reply to: haman10

The way I see it no one can come to the table without prior grievances.

let the talks continue.



posted on Sep, 12 2015 @ 10:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: enlightenedservant

So America allows Iran to build a nuclear weapon or suffers an attack from Iran if it interferes.


America is not allowing Iran to build nukes. Iran still has to follow the NPT and every intelligence agency on the planet says they are not building nukes. The only people saying Iran is building nukes is that warmongering idiot from Israel and his bootlickers in the American congress.



posted on Sep, 12 2015 @ 10:11 AM
link   
For those who are interested in understanding the nonpartisan and unspun realities of the Iran deal, Harvard's Belfer Center has a very good paper on the subject.



posted on Sep, 12 2015 @ 10:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: enlightenedservant

So America allows Iran to build a nuclear weapon or suffers an attack from Iran if it interferes.


America is not allowing Iran to build nukes. Iran still has to follow the NPT and every intelligence agency on the planet says they are not building nukes. The only people saying Iran is building nukes is that warmongering idiot from Israel and his bootlickers in the American congress.


That's a very good point they have signed the NPT and unlike this deal the NPT covers all three methods of nuke attainment. So if they signed the NPT and it covers all aspects of nuke pursuit, why do we need a deal to prevent nuke pursuit that actually covers less than the previously signed NPT?

As stated this argument will continue and there will be no benefit except for the political class and friends. But what should be obvious is that this deal is not really about containing anything. Your guess is as good as mine on the real reasons behind the deal. It has nothing to do with stated goals though. Unless as I have stated the NPT is completely useless in which case we have a ton more issues of which Iran is pretty low on the totem pole.



posted on Sep, 12 2015 @ 10:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu



Threats to attack and threats to retaliate are two different things. "Death to America" does not equal "If they try anything the US Military will turn the sand under their feet to glass."

America started this with the overthrow of the Iranian government back in 53.



In response to "Drive Israel into the sea!"

This came after the decades of threats from Israel.



Is there some concern that the US or Israel would actually use those weapons for any reason but retaliation?

WW2 was proof that America will use nukes even though there was no reason to use them. Also during the Yom Kippur war the military leaders in Israel wanted to use nukes against Egypt.



The US and Israel don't chant 'death to Iran' nor do they send proxy terrorists into other countries.

You really don't know much about history do you? Israel has openly admitted to arming terrorist and even now gives aid to the terrorist group Nursa front and the UN has proof of this. As far as Americas go ever hear of a group called the Contras? They were nothing but a terrorist group.



posted on Sep, 12 2015 @ 11:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: enlightenedservant

Its only instigating hostilities when you are attacking them actually.


How are the Stuxnet attacks and assassinating their scientists not attacking them? Also, the example the person gave was if the US attacked Iranian nuclear facilities. How is that not instigating hostilities?


The same way that HEzbollah and other proxy groups started it first that Iran supports. And Israel is the killer of thos e scientist not th e US we dont do assasinations remember?(snerk yeah still it was all mossad)



posted on Sep, 12 2015 @ 05:04 PM
link   
Maybe if some people in the west looked at it from the perspective of the Iranians / Russians/ Chinese.

Irans major resaons for originally wanting nuclear weapons was because of the threat from Israel.

In more detail Israel is by pretty much every current international definition a terrorist state:
1. No defined borders, randomly grabs more land even though it is against international directives
2. Uses extrajudicial killings on a regular basis, justification "defence"

3. Possesses Nuclear weapons since 1966, no a signatory of the Non Proliferation Treaty, undelcared amount of warheads (also against world treaties)
4. Has used heavy military weapons against unarmed civilians on numerous occasions
5. Has used banned munitions against civilians on numerous occasions (white Phos, Cluster Bombs etc)

Now since a slight shift in government, Iran has agreed to a deal which does slow them down an awful lot in the process of developing nukes, let's face it if they really wanted to nuke Israel then they can buy the modified Chinese warheads easily and make it a flase flagged attack.

Simple fact is that we have to put our own houses in order first before we can reasonably expect our "enemies" to calm down.

The basic truth is of the nuke armed rogue states (non NPT signers) 3 out of the 4 are our allies (India, Pakistan, Israel) with only poor old North Korea against us. We're the agressors here, and it's about time we started growing up and acting like real adults rather than the rabid behaviour of both the US senate & Congress and the Israelis.

And please, no shouts of Antisemitism - I'm not antisemitic, I'm a realist, Jews are great, Israel is VERY far from the true Jewish faith.

Rant over.



posted on Sep, 12 2015 @ 05:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheBogmonster
Maybe if some people in the west looked at it from the perspective of the Iranians / Russians/ Chinese.

Irans major resaons for originally wanting nuclear weapons was because of the threat from Israel.

In more detail Israel is by pretty much every current international definition a terrorist state:
1. No defined borders, randomly grabs more land even though it is against international directives
2. Uses extrajudicial killings on a regular basis, justification "defence"

3. Possesses Nuclear weapons since 1966, no a signatory of the Non Proliferation Treaty, undelcared amount of warheads (also against world treaties)
4. Has used heavy military weapons against unarmed civilians on numerous occasions
5. Has used banned munitions against civilians on numerous occasions (white Phos, Cluster Bombs etc)

Now since a slight shift in government, Iran has agreed to a deal which does slow them down an awful lot in the process of developing nukes, let's face it if they really wanted to nuke Israel then they can buy the modified Chinese warheads easily and make it a flase flagged attack.

Simple fact is that we have to put our own houses in order first before we can reasonably expect our "enemies" to calm down.

The basic truth is of the nuke armed rogue states (non NPT signers) 3 out of the 4 are our allies (India, Pakistan, Israel) with only poor old North Korea against us. We're the agressors here, and it's about time we started growing up and acting like real adults rather than the rabid behaviour of both the US senate & Congress and the Israelis.

And please, no shouts of Antisemitism - I'm not antisemitic, I'm a realist, Jews are great, Israel is VERY far from the true Jewish faith.

Rant over.



Sure if by adults more democrats, less republicans or vice versa, forget it. Really doesn't matter what party is in charge were screwed. The average person in America has had nothing to do with our current state of relationships on the world front.

How would you recommend we act like adults and fix it?

But I still go back to the point that Iran signed the NPT which covers nuke attainment. Why pursue a deal that covers nuke attainment with the NPT signed and unlike this deal that only covers 1 the NPT covers three.

Somewhere someone is lying or living in fantasyland about what these agreements are for. And we take the bait and argue on the talking points, not realities.



posted on Sep, 12 2015 @ 05:22 PM
link   
a reply to: TheBogmonster

Because of the threat of Israel?

Israel has nukes, if they wanted to nuke them they would have already........



posted on Sep, 12 2015 @ 06:29 PM
link   
AHh learned something interesting. this decision was made 7 months ago by the republican senate leaders and the democrats to support this deal. But yuppa they always hold up deals and stuff obama wants. Yeah just enough to claim they are"fighting" against him. its a big show.



posted on Sep, 13 2015 @ 06:31 AM
link   
The better question being: Why would anyone use a nuke? I think it'd be a unanimous decision to destroy whichever army had used one.

If Iran wants nuclear power plants then by God let the bastards do it. All those bastards need to know is you mess with Israel you mess with US.



posted on Sep, 13 2015 @ 06:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
But shouldn't the opposite also hold true? American lawmakers have threatened attacks on Iran for years.


Threats to attack and threats to retaliate are two different things.

"Death to America" does not equal "If they try anything the US Military will turn the sand under their feet to glass."


Netanyahu has threatened attacks on Iran for years, too.


In response to "Drive Israel into the sea!"


Israel & the US were responsible for the Stuxnet attacks on Iran several years ago & even assassinated Iranian nuclear scientists.


You have proof the US was involved in either of those?


And don't forget, both the US & Israel actually have nuclear weapons.


Is there some concern that the US or Israel would actually use those weapons for any reason but retaliation?

The US and Israel don't chant 'death to Iran' nor do they send proxy terrorists into other countries. At most the US arms and trains natives to defend their own land.

There is serious concern that Iran would smuggle a nuclear bomb into another country via their proxies.


What type of proof are you looking for that the US was involved in operation Olympic games????

mobile.nytimes.com...

If you're expecting the president to come out and say we did it, then probably not.



posted on Sep, 13 2015 @ 02:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: haman10
For those of you who are more familiar with US politics , what is exactly the logic behind this ? cause for all i know , i interpret them as warmongering and desperation for a bloody war .


It's just a vote for show. The House has no authority here, treaties do go through the Senate but not the House. It's essentially just a vote for politicians to align themselves for our coming election so they can say they're against it.

These types of show votes happen all the time, no one is going to seriously try to stop the treaty because there would be enormous international consequences for doing so. Not only would it mean we now have no leverage with Iran but the other nations who expended diplomatic capital on the treaty in certain areas with the intention that we would push for other areas would be pissed. We're not going to do that to Europe, it would be an unmitigated disaster in foreign policy and completely isolate the US from the rest of the world.

Edit: Furthermore, the votes that have gone through congress (this one and previous ones) have been non binding resolutions. Which basically mean the government has no obligation to adhere to the outcome of the vote, and traditionally it means just ignoring the outcome. They're nothing more than a way for lawmakers to take sides on an issue without ever having to actually do anything. This is useful come election time because the candidates can point to a voting record for their stance on something, it's also useful to the political parties themselves because in the house particularly the districts are gerrymandered, the real challenge for a House seat comes from the primary vote rather than the general election, so if someone doesn't play ball on the symbolic votes they'll have their party endorse a challenger for their seat rather than them.
edit on 13-9-2015 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2015 @ 03:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Reallyfolks
That's a very good point they have signed the NPT and unlike this deal the NPT covers all three methods of nuke attainment. So if they signed the NPT and it covers all aspects of nuke pursuit, why do we need a deal to prevent nuke pursuit that actually covers less than the previously signed NPT?


Because there are no penalties for violating the NPT. It's mainly enforced through economic incentives for signing on. At any time Iran could withdraw from the treaty with no penalty because they're already being punished economically through sanctions.

By creating this deal it's opening a path for economic ties between the west and Iran which gives them an actual incentive to not build weapons.



posted on Sep, 13 2015 @ 06:05 PM
link   
This agreement is supported by Obama and gang...liars and supporters of liars. It has nothing to do with safety or security and has everything to do with control. But the bottom line is this. Who will stop Iran WHEN it breaks the agreement? The same one who has threatened RED LINES and never backed them up?

If not evil, we have a neutered cat as a President that doesn't have the balls to make an agreement anyone would give a crap about breaking.




top topics



 
10
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join