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.

 

Here we go again...Iran's a nuclear threat

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
I'm not dissapointed at all...we all have different opinions, isnt that what makes the world go round? I'm thick skinned in case you havent noticed by now...no problema


Hey dg! If everyone was the same, it would be a boring world and life would be way less interesting than it is now!

Take care and hurry up and find them aspirins!


[edit on 24/1/05 by Intelearthling]




posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Geneticus
Yup it's true...

U.S. INTELLIGENCE OBTAINS IRANIAN NUKE PLANS



That reminds me bush "reliable sources" back when the Iraq motives for invasion.

I wonder if they have another chalabis or allawi doing the seach for bush.


Sep

posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
That reminds me bush "reliable sources" back when the Iraq motives for invasion.

I wonder if they have another chalabis or allawi doing the seach for bush.


I think this time they picked the terrorist orgonization, MKO, for their reliable information.



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 07:41 PM
link   
I don't think that the CIA or Mossad are a good group of go to guys for intel on this subject.

They may know, but what is told to the public is something completely different.

Some speculate that Mossad is behind 9-11, and this would fit in nicely with that idea (not endoursing it). But does anyone know who was behind 9-11?

No.



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
I would have never thought this of the government before, but as it stands right now, we are dangerous and have no more right to have them than anyone else.


Sure we have the right. We are the ones who finished the research and spent the money to figure out how to make them. Fair or not, it is our right and our responsibility. Tell ya what, if you didn't have to buy them or most of the parts for them from another country, if you designed and built it all on your own without shopping at the third-world used nuke parts store, you have the right to have them.

Do you honestly fear that the US will use a Nuke without someone else using one first? Even now most Americans who think in depth about it are horrified at the destruction we inflicted on Japan, even for the most noble of reasons. America's formal apology to Japan was heartfelt and sincere, but the world had to know. Hopefully everyone knows better, now.

Here is the real problem with any Islamic nation (including Pakistan) having Nukes. Religion is not rational, meaning it cannot be observed, quantified, or demonstrated. Therefore it cannot be agreed upon as a common basis for communication. Nations governed by Religion are not rational, therefore cannot be interacted with in a rational way by nations that count on common rational assumptions (like we all don't want to die). The short of this is that you cannot count on deterance to be effective if you believe that your enemy might make your destruction a higher priority than their own survival.

That is not rational in the same way that blowing yourself up to kill your own innocent countrymen is not rational, but some Islamo-facist encouraged by Iran or some other Islamic power does it almost daily. If Iran will sanction and cheer for this tactic on a personal level, what makes anyone think they will balk at the same behavior at a national level?

Once again, who here trust Iran with Nukes?

Maybe the real question should be, what are we going to do when Isreal hits Iran's nuclear facilities?



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ambient Sound

Religion is not rational, meaning it cannot be observed, quantified, or demonstrated. Therefore it cannot be agreed upon as a common basis for communication. Nations governed by Religion are not rational,Once again, who here trust Iran with Nukes?

Maybe the real question should be, what are we going to do when Isreal hits Iran's nuclear facilities?


Ok, do I hear well? Religion is not rational, then we should be afraid because bush may not be rational if we are going to used religion here, remember bush serves "a higher being" and he gets calls "from the stars" so hey we should be afraid then.

He aslo seems to be ruling with religion in mind so should we trust him?



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 08:12 PM
link   
I was about to say the same thing marg haha
The only reason Iran is trying to get nuclear devices is becasue it is scared, yes of course iran does not like israel but israel doesnt not like iran either. And which country are the ones with the nukes at the moment?
Israel is a religiously run state aswell, how can u not be scared of them nuking palestine, iran, syria, lebanon, lybia? They are the ones with the capablility of doing so, yet no one is asking why america doesnt invade israel?
Iran are not a bunch of fanatics, they are people with knowledge of what would happen in a nuclear war and are not stuiped enough to nuke any country without being nuked fisrt.



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 08:45 PM
link   
[edit added:]
Ha! Trust you to find a Bush-bash in there somewhere, Marg!


Originally posted by marg6043
Ok, do I hear well? Religion is not rational, then we should be afraid because bush may not be rational if we are going to used religion here, remember bush serves "a higher being" and he gets calls "from the stars" so hey we should be afraid then.

He aslo seems to be ruling with religion in mind so should we trust him?


No, religion is not rational in the sense that it not something that everyone can agree on. We govern society based on things we can prove, like " a hungry child is a bad thing", or "a dollar will buy this much bread", or "we're all going to sign an agreement that says we are going to adhere to certain rules that we think will benefit the most people". Law is the law because we all agree that it is a good idea (theoretically, anyway) for reasons we can discuss and reason out, not because "God" said it was the law. If a person's religious beliefs and values inspire them to come up with good ideas, that is fine. I don't care where an idea comes from, only that it's a good idea. If GWB had the power of religious rule, abortion would be illegal, instead of them trying to raise support and manuver to make it illegal.

Islam is not that way, as far as I can tell. In Islam, it is law because that old man over there said that "God" said it is law.... or told somebody who wrote it in a book a long time ago, or something... Is it a good idea to keep the female half of your populaton in virtual slavery? Apparently it's ok with Allah, so it doesn't matter if it's a good idea or not.

Iran is the same country that allowed our Embassy there to be stormed by Religious fanatics and allowed 52 of our citizens, including some Christian clergy, to be held hostage for 444 days around 25 years ago, because we allowed their deposed leader, The Shah to come here for medical treatment and to die. They kept the hostages even after the Shah died in Egypt in 1980. Is that rational?

Once again, do you trust Iran with Nukes? Yes or No?

[edit on 24-1-2005 by Ambient Sound]


Sep

posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ambient Sound
Iran is the same country that allowed our Embassy there to be stormed by Religious fanatics and allowed 52 of our citizens, including some Christian clergy, to be held hostage for 444 days around 25 years ago, because we allowed their deposed leader, The Shah to come here for medical treatment and to die. They kept the hostages even after the Shah died in Egypt in 1980. Is that rational?


In my opinion it is fairly rational. What would the Jews do if they find out that Hitler was treated for cancer? What would you do if you find that Iran has publicly allowed Bin Ladin to enter Iran for medical treatment? What would the American population do? It wasnt their religion that pushed them to enter the embassy, it was the anger and helplesness they felt to see a dictator who killed thousands and tortured millions was being treated for an illness in a country that did everything it could to stop democracy from progressing in their country.

[edit on 24-1-2005 by Sep]



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 09:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ambient Sound

Islam is not that way, as far as I can tell. In Islam, it is law because that old man over there said that "God" said it is law.... or told somebody who wrote it in a book a long time ago, or something... Is it a good idea to keep the female half of your population in virtual slavery? Apparently it's OK with Allah, so it doesn't matter if it's a good idea or not.


Funny when people tried to justify Christianity over Islam sometimes it sound just the same.



Iran is the same country that allowed our Embassy there to be stormed by Religious fanatics and allowed 52 of our citizens, including some Christian clergy, to be held hostage for 444 days around 25 years ago, because we allowed their deposed leader, The Shah to come here for medical treatment and to die. They kept the hostages even after the Shah died in Egypt in 1980. Is that rational?


You forgot that the "dear old shah" was supported by US against the people's wishes and that was supposed to be good.

Very typical to for US to support government even if their people don't.

And for the question I don't trust Iran any more that I trust our god send president with them here in the US.

Does that answer your question? I bet if he uses them in the middle east you will be one to applaud him, after all middle eastern people are nothing like us Christian peace loving americans.Right?


[edit on 24-1-2005 by marg6043]



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 09:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sep
What would the American population do?


Have we seen many Embassy stormings in the US? Any angry religious mobs storming Mosques and holding hostages for months in the US? If we behaved as the people of Iran did in in the taking of those hostages, no Muslim would be safe anywhere in the US right now. That is clearly not the case, nor will it ever be.

In fact, many of us suppose that Iran would indeed give haven to Osama and likely has. I would not be surprised. They know we are not going to attack them. We might however look the other way while Israel does. That is my biggest worry.

As I've said, there is no telling what Religious Governments might do.
They're not rational, after all.


Sep

posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 10:04 PM
link   
Here is what the US did, overthrow a strong dictator for a weak one, when the weak king is overthrown by democracy they entered Tehran and overthrow democracy. Put in the Shah again, he killed tens of thousands, tortured millions, and after he was overthrown, he was invited to the US for a medical check up. Iranians demanded that he be returned to his country for trial, he wasnt so Iranians took hostages.

Here is what Al-Qaede did, attack America in several occasions killing less than 5000 people. In response you invaded Afghanestan, killing alot of people. Then you kidnapped people and put the in prisons. Then you tortured prisoners.

To me this sounds like the same thing as Iranian population did or a little worse seeing how Iran didnt kill anyone, and released the women and blacks at the start. Keep in mind that the US openly invited a dictator into their country while Iraq didnt have anything to do with Bin Ladin and there is no proof that Iran has him.



[edit on 24-1-2005 by Sep]



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ambient Sound
Once again, who here trust Iran with Nukes?


Might as well give up Ambient, I have asked this question I don't know how many times. Nobody, except you answered it. None of those who are so against us doing what has to be done can outright say, "yes, I trust the future of my children to Islamic fundamentalists", because IMO, all they want to do is complain about Bush, and link this to Iraq, knowing they'll be kept safe in spite of themselves.

They can't bring themselves to go on record saying they trust Iran with nukes. They just spout off reasons why we have no right to tell them they can't have them, knowing all along the US will do what's necessary anyway, to keep their families safe. Normally I'd be complaining about Bush right along with them, but not in this case. The stakes are too high, they are much closer to having nuclear weapons than Iraq ever was. And IMO a much greater threat than Iraq would have been with them. I was and am against the war in Iraq, but this is a different story. If Iran was playing straight, they would allow full access to their nuclear program, if they were playing straight, why all the rhetoric about being ready to repel the US with "the greatest deterrent", why not say "come on in guys, see for yourself", and not play shell games by only allowing access to sites they approve when they approve? Why are they bluffing? They should know we aren't, I could call Bush alot of things, but a man who bluffs is not one of them. On this issue, and pretty much this issue alone, I support him.



[edit on 24-1-2005 by 27jd]


Sep

posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 10:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd
If Iran was playing straight, they would allow full access to their nuclear program


Which part of the Iran has the UN demanded to see and been refused?



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 10:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sep
Which part of the Iran has the UN demanded to see and been refused?


Gee I dunno, the whole thing maybe?



Iran has imposed an indefinite freeze on international inspections by the United Nations nuclear watchdog.

The move was in retaliation to an International Atomic Energy Agency resolution "deploring" Iran's failure to report some nuclear activities.

Hassan Rowhani, of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, said the resolution was "unfair and deceitful".

The US condemned Iran's move, saying it might be an attempt to gain time or hide covert activities.

The chief US delegate to the IAEA, Kenneth Brill, said: "This is a measure of their full co-operation - they're postponing the very thing that they are called on to do by their obligations."


news.bbc.co.uk...


Sep

posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 10:30 PM
link   
LOL, read the date 14 March, 2004

You might have missed this, but every inch of Iran has been inspected including military bases which Iran could have denied.

freeinternetpress.com...

its from January 5 2005


Oh sorry this is a little newer

nyjtimes.com...

IAEA Experts to Check Iranian Military Facility Parchin 18 January 2005

[edit on 24-1-2005 by Sep]



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 10:31 PM
link   
Why would anyone trust Iran with Nukes?

The answer is, is that no one does. But who trusts anyone with nukes. I don't trust anyone at all with them.

Fact remains that they are here to stay it seems, but Iran should be lower on the list than #1 because they don't have them yet and it's not like they can magically make them into 5 megaton truck bombs and get them into the US overnight.



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ambient Sound
Sure we have the right. We are the ones who finished the research and spent the money to figure out how to make them. Fair or not, it is our right and our responsibility. Tell ya what, if you didn't have to buy them or most of the parts for them from another country, if you designed and built it all on your own without shopping at the third-world used nuke parts store, you have the right to have them.


That's ridiculous. You don't have rights over nuclear weapon technology. Tech blueprints and the like are stolen, exchanged, backwards engineered, copied all the time. The fact that you make something just announces to the world that it can be done. Before long everyone will have it. In some cases other countries will have a counter measure designed and produced for whatever tech you make. This is called an arms race. Money talks. The world is driven by greed. The US sells as much weapon tech to the rest of the world as it is. You're living in a dream world, when the truth is that the development of nuclear nations is your own doing.



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sep
LOL, read the date 14 March, 2004

You might have missed this, but every inch of Iran has been inspected including military bases which Iran could have denied.

freeinternetpress.com...

its from January 5 2005


LOL, every inch HAS been inspected? You're article says:



Iran is to allow the United Nations' nuclear watchdog to carry out inspections at one of its most secret military sites. Inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) are on standby to visit the plant, at Parchin.


It says Iran "is" to, implying that they have not yet, so they are allowing inspections at their convenience? Possible shell games, or are they just pushing it? How did that go anyway? I'm interested to know how those inspections went.



Oh sorry this is a little newer

nyjtimes.com...

IAEA Experts to Check Iranian Military Facility Parchin 18 January 2005

[edit on 24-1-2005 by Sep]


Oh, thanks, is this more of Iran's every inch?



"There will be no direct inspections on the facility," said the source.


Are these at Iran's earliest convenience inspections?



"Tehran has agreed to the IAEA taking samples in the area and on the territory of the military facility with the purpose of creating an atmosphere of trust and closing in the future of the Iranian 'nuclear file.'"


Oh boy, they've agreed to let the IAEA to dake samples of dirt around the nuclear facilities, why can't they just have a look inside? Every inch, indeed.


Sep

posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd
Oh boy, they've agreed to let the IAEA to dake samples of dirt around the nuclear facilities, why can't they just have a look inside? Every inch, indeed.


Do you hear yourself? There is not dirt in the facility, cause it is a millitary base. You show me a military base which is filled with dirt.

They will inspect it and take the samples from around tha facility and leave. They do this, even though they are not allowed in military bases. Iran is trying to build confidence in the world, but the world isnt making it easy.

[edit on 24-1-2005 by Sep]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join