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: Bush Won't Rule Out Military Action Against Iran Over Nukes

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 11:35 PM
link   
You are right there FredT and again the amazing word "oil" comes to mind.

But occurs many around will said is not truth, Iraq and Iran together sit on the biggest lake of oil in the middle east.

But will the Iranians give their country willingly as you can see Iraq did not US is still trying to get control of it.

And will China and Russia be willing to have US controlling such vast amounts of oil?

Hard to tell.




posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 11:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT

Originally posted by dubiousone
What threat does Iran pose to the US???? None, in reality. If it poses a threat at all, it is a threat to the countries in that region of the world. I don't hear the Iranians threatening other countries.


In that you are incorrect. The biggest threat to the United States is OIL. Period. With the House of Saud Ripe for a fall, you would have two countries with huge oil reserves hostile to the US. and forget about gettin oil from Kuait and Iraq out of the gulf.

This highlights the strategic importance of Iraq. A pipeline coul dbe built through Turkey to get its oil out in the short term.

Iran's threat is as you say not a direct one. Its the indirect one that caries the greater threat at any rate.


This is absolutely true. Can you imagine a nuclear-armed Iran threating Israel, European cities and the oil fields of Saudi Arabia and Iraq with nuclear devastation unless they are allowed to corner the oil market by taking over Iraq and Saudi Arabia? It would bring the industrialized nations to their knees.



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 11:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by dubiousone
What threat does Iran pose to the US???? None, in reality...


It's not the government of Iran the U.S. is worried about... it's terrorists purchasing nuclear weapons from Iran's government and then bringing them to the U.S. and detonating them.


Originally posted by dubiousone
The European nations are expressing no fear of or threat from Iran...


Are these the same European nations that allowed two World Wars to start? Europe historically has been really slow to recognize threats.


[edit on 1/17/2005 by ThunderCloud]



posted on Jan, 18 2005 @ 12:10 AM
link   
FredT says:


The biggest threat to the United States is OIL. Period. With the House of Saud Ripe for a fall, you would have two countries with huge oil reserves hostile to the US. and forget about gettin oil from Kuait and Iraq out of the gulf.
This highlights the strategic importance of Iraq. A pipeline coul dbe built through Turkey to get its oil out in the short term.
Iran's threat is as you say not a direct one. Its the indirect one that caries the greater threat at any rate.


Well said FredT. I applaud your honesty.

Strip away all the bull$hit and it in fact comes right down to oil. Nothing to do with Sadam and WMD. Nothing to do with removing Sadam so that the Iraqi people can have a better government.

No direct or indirect threat of harm. It's the friggin' oil. Can't let those camel jockeys control the oil in their own back yard. It would bring us to a screachin' halt. Why, we might even have a moment to think about what we are doing in the world and maybe acquire an incentive to end our self-destructive dependence on crude from the Middle East. Can't have that! Some big-wig well-connected right-winger might LOSE MONEY!!!!

We are there for the oil! That's it! That's all! Fine'! End is story! What a revelation! We would never have thought of that! It is nice, though, to read a post from your segment of the spectrum which straightforwardly admits that this is what it's all about.

If oil was not there we would not give a rat's a$$ about that region or its people, except maybe for Israel and its and the US's role in hastening Armageddon.

The publicly proclaimed justifications for every move the U.S. makes lately are nothing but Bull$hit pretexts that a grade-schooler can see through. Greed, deception, lies, lies, and more lies, and worse.

Who would have thought such an elegant synopsis of what it's really all about would be posted by a member of the right-wing element at ATSNN. Thanks FredT. You have risen very high in my esteem because of that post. I like honesty. More of that and we might actually be able to solve a problem or two instead of just aimlessly discussing and arguing about things.


[edit on 1/18/2005 by dubiousone]



posted on Jan, 18 2005 @ 12:17 AM
link   
Iran again turns to Russia

Russia is building these reactors, but it's supposed to be okay because they are requiring all spent fuel to be returned to them. Heh. As we know, Russians are experts when it comes to dealing with Jihadist Muslims... NOT! Ten years of fighting the Mujahedeen and then seeing their children blown up in Beslan has apparently taught them nothing. Are they this desperate for construction projects?

Personally I think we're seeing chess-pieces being moved into position. The Cold War is over. The Hot War is ramping up.




[edit on 18-1-2005 by smallpeeps]



posted on Jan, 18 2005 @ 12:22 AM
link   

The European nations are expressing no fear of or threat from Iran.


Not true at all. The EU has been negotiating with Iran for a while now. They aren't taking a hardline stance like America, but Europe never does.


The only countries that are threatening others at the moment are the U.S., Israel, and North Korea. Keep this up and eventually a greater power is going to say its time to put those threats down. What Dubya is doing in the world is blurring the boundaries between nations, invading other nations on pretext, and in the big picture, it all does seem to fit in with a drive toward the NWO, doesn't it. Destroy national boundaries. Keep the real agenda hidden until there's no turning back. Pay no intention to the damage and death caused along the way. It's for a higher purpose after all.


Israel has NEVER instigated a war with anyone. Calling them a threat only shows your biased ignorance.


You so-called conservatives or neo-cons or whatever else you like to call yourselves have lost all sense of reality. There is a practical limit to what the USA can do in the world. We're just about there. Stretch it thin enough and we will fall like a house of cards. There are other powers in the world with formidable weaponry. Pray to God they don't decide to join this insanity on the other side.


A practical limit? America used to have the capability to fight wars on multiple continents before old Clinton came to the helm. We have hundreds of thousands of troops stationed throughout the world. Not even half our forces in Iraq. It's more like a quarter of our ground forces. Money is no problem for America. Our debt isn't near as big as the media makes it out to be. Old Europe has more of a problem there.

It's amazing. The same things being said about these Middle Eastern countries were being said about Nazi Germany.

Iran most likely won't develop into a direct military threat to America. They do have the ability to target something that would bring about our collapse - oil. If Saudi Arabia falls, we fall. All of these nations like Iran and Iraq (especially Iraq) could destabalize America and all of the West.



posted on Jan, 18 2005 @ 12:29 AM
link   
If the biggest threat to the US is oil, why didn't we take it back in the Gulf War?.....

It was right there in front of us, all we had to do was say that we had to pay for all the expenses of the war because of what Saddam did, and it would be ours at this moment. Noone could have said no.... The insurgents were not as organized as they are now......

Hell, we could have made Iraq a US colony, but why didn't Bush Sr do it?....

I do agree that oil is part of why we are there, but it is not the main reason....at least not for us to claim that oil as ours....

We could have had Iraq as ours right now, we never did, and we are not going to start now either.

[edit on 18-1-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Jan, 18 2005 @ 12:30 AM
link   


Israel has NEVER instigated a war with anyone. Calling them a threat only shows your biased ignorance.


I suppose it was in my dreams and fantasies that I heard Israel threatening a first strike upon Iran's nuclear power facilities. That sounded like a THREAT to me. We must be subscribing to different news sources. Try paying attention to the New York Times, L.A. Times, even FOX NEWS!

[edit on 1/18/2005 by dubiousone]



posted on Jan, 18 2005 @ 12:34 AM
link   

I suppose it was in my dreams and fantasies that I heard Israel threatening a first strike upon Iran's nuclear power facilities. Thta sounded like a THREAT to me. We must be subscribing to different news sources. Try paying attention to the New York Times, L.A. Times, even FOX NEWS!


Attacking a nuclear facility isn't instigating a war. And Iran would be the instigator for building the damn nuclear reactor in the first place. They signed the NPT of their own accord.

I think you should start paying attention to the news more. Like how Europe has been trying to get Iran to stop its nuclear activity, and even the likes of Chirac have given warnings.



posted on Jan, 18 2005 @ 12:39 AM
link   

from marg
I think life is going to become very hard around the world in a few more months, if Bush attacks Iran, this are my feelings.

Occurs you have different views.

You know what happens when you occurs, don't you?


Special Ops are in Iran right now doing a variety of dastardly deeds.



posted on Jan, 18 2005 @ 12:50 AM
link   


Attacking a nuclear facility isn't instigating a war.


I see. So, for example, if Iran or some other Middle Eastern Arab or Muslim nation attacked Israel's nuclear facilities that would not be an act of war?

[edit on 1/18/2005 by dubiousone]



posted on Jan, 18 2005 @ 01:08 AM
link   

I see. So, for example, if Iran or some other Middle Eastern Arab or Muslim nation attacked Israel's nuclear facilities that would not be an act of war?


Like it or not, there are two different standards in the world. A nation that has obtained nukes is going to be more safe. Iran isn't in position to attack Israel because they're too weak. On the other hand, Israel can get away with bombing an Iranian nuclear facility just like they did Iraq. They'll get away with it just because Iran can't react.



posted on Jan, 18 2005 @ 01:17 AM
link   
Good post Muaddib

The US is not there primarily for oil or we would have had it already, and our gas prices would be pocket change. I think the reasons for the war are grossly built up to be more complicated then what were actually intended, thanks to the dramatic media and a few administration mistakes.
America saw it as a good opportunity after the sweep of Afganistan to continue the momentum, and take out the dictator in Iraq in order to establish some change in the middle east. 9/11 was the breaking point. There was enourmous amounts of pressure from not only American public, but from around the world for the US to do somthing. During this time, the support we had was on a much higher scale. The problem is simply that we flowed into Iraq too fast without gaining more world support, educating the public, and planning the campain. I think our intentions to go were originally to clean up the terrorist states, but i think its simply the media and some poor rushed planning that has led to many fallacies on what the US intended. Either way, We will get the job done and people will eventually see the benefits down the road and things will cool off. I am a little off topic, but i liked your post and logic.
You are one who is open minded and not jumping to conclusion that the US is trying to dominate the world.....which is nothing but flak


Sep

posted on Jan, 18 2005 @ 01:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
And Iran would be the instigator for building the damn nuclear reactor in the first place. They signed the NPT of their own accord.


They are allowed to build a reactor under the NPT.



posted on Jan, 18 2005 @ 02:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
The only Americans lacking foresight are the liberals. I'd argue that many Europeans happen to be lacking foresight, as well.


LMAO, Europeans didnt vote in Dubya!



posted on Jan, 18 2005 @ 02:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by instar

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
The only Americans lacking foresight are the liberals. I'd argue that many Europeans happen to be lacking foresight, as well.


LMAO, Europeans didnt vote in Dubya!


Thank God the Europeans can't vote for U.S. president!



posted on Jan, 18 2005 @ 02:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
Sooner or later the entire world will be threatened by nukes from Iran. Why is it that only the US is concerned enough to saber-rattle?


WE feel threatened more by Mr bushs sabre rattling and the US bully tactics interfering with other nations. If the Us didnt have nukes, we would stand united with you to stop nuke proliferation. As it is the US are global Hypocrits. Makes no difference who has nukes, if they ever get used the result is the same. How is stopping anyone else having them making the world safer? Its Not! the US just wants the upper hand, to minimise the ELite club.



posted on Jan, 18 2005 @ 02:53 AM
link   
I think any war with Iran would be for two reasons, Oil, and Nukes. Thje simple fact is Irn has no need for either Nuclear weapons or Nuclear power. As someone sad earlier Iran has no enemies in that region other than Isreal and they have never initiated a war. Isreal on the other hand is surrounded by natons who have publicly stated the destruction of Isreal as thier goal.
In reference to oil whoever sad we can't trust the "camel jockeys" with oil is 100% correct. The middle eastern governments as a whole have not shown the maturity necessry to have control of oil. Thier inabiility not to attempt to use oil as a weapon against the west has brought this upon themselves. Iran, Syria etc. simply havent shown themselves to be civilised enought to allow thier continued existance.



posted on Jan, 18 2005 @ 03:18 AM
link   
NO leader can EVER take the use of force off of the table...
the threat of use of force, even if its not stated.."we will use force" is what backs up diplomacy....without this threat, what would enforce any diplomatic agrement?

So of course Bush wont take use of nukes off the table...it weakens your diplomatic stance, offensivly or more importantly, defensivly.


Sep

posted on Jan, 18 2005 @ 04:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by mwm1331
As someone sad earlier Iran has no enemies in that region


Ummmm, not exactly true. Iraq has attacked Iran and is now being set up as a future enemy to Iran. To the south there are Arab countries that are pretty much the US puppets and have hated Iran since their existance. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait have shown that they will follow anyone who is would attack Iran. To the east there is Pakistan, not an enemy, but far from a friend. To the north is Russia, who might not be an enemy but is a nuclear power. And as you mentioned, there is Israel who has threatened to attack Iran for decades. To the north is Turkey, a member of NATO. Iran isnt exactly loved by it neighbours and their respective governments.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join