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.

 

Are We Changing the Reasons to Attack Iran?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 09:44 AM
link   
The talk of the dangerous nuclear threat Iran poses is not being received well by Congress and the idea of war is definitely being frowned upon by both the Senate and House right now. Condie Rice is appeasing dissent about the idea of attacking Iran saying there is no plan to attack Iran “at this point”.

However, we are now hearing more and more about Iran’s treatment of its citizens as “abysmal”. Rice now says the Iranian regime's behavior in the area of human rights ''is something that is to be loathed''

Could the White House be setting the tone for a strike to free Iran’s citizens from “the unelected few” who run Iran rather than to attack Iran in order to relieve them of their weapons of mass destruction? This was a methodology that worked very well in rallying US support for going into Iraq. Is Rice is conditioning US citizens to loathe the Iranian regime's treatment of their citizens so we will be more amenable in attacking them for that reason and not because of WMDs?




[edit on 4-2-2005 by jupiter869]




posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 09:48 AM
link   
Well it does not surprised me, remember that the Invasion of Iraq, started with the MWDs, and then move on to Sadam was a brutal dictator that killed many of his citizens, and then US never found the hundreds of thousands of mass graves and either the MWDs.

So is just the same pattern we are seen here.



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 09:54 AM
link   
This government will tell you what works and has worked in the past.
Now they will say they have to free them from the evil goernment.
And then there will be talk about a Bush statue there too.
How many statues do you think he'll get before someone drops the big one on us?

Bush, "the mad liberator"



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 09:56 AM
link   
I admit that i don't know too much about the topic of stopping countries getting nuclear weapons and what would happen if what i suggest was done but would hitting their nuclear facilities be an option? That way you could hopefully prevent war (provided they don't strike back with whatever they have) by stopping them from inriching uranium to weapons grade. I have been reading a bit about the subject but still don't fully understand it all. I know Israel has done this in the past so could doing this again stop them from being able to build a bomb in the near future? If so why hasn't the US already done this? Going there to free the Iranians would solve the underlying problem rather than just buying some time so maybe that's the reason for the change.

[edit on 4-2-2005 by Trent]



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 10:04 AM
link   
Are [n]we changing the reason!? More like our dear lovable, godly President is changing the reason.....but we must remember. God talks to him, so he knows what he's doing........scary isn't it!?



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 10:07 AM
link   
LadyV- nothing scares me more than this president. He's a monster in the making. There's no telling what this man is capable of. I hope he doesnt have access to "The Button"



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
LadyV- nothing scares me more than this president. He's a monster in the making. There's no telling what this man is capable of. I hope he doesn't have access to "The Button"


That is why he is surrounding himself with the right people so they all will back him up on anything he does and say, after all you can not go against the will of our lord and saviour.



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
LadyV- nothing scares me more than this president. He's a monster in the making. There's no telling what this man is capable of. I hope he doesnt have access to "The Button"


He does. It is nicknamed "The Football".

Well, we had Rummie promote the first war. Now I guess its up to Condi to get the masses prepared. I wonder if she will persiver and convince the population that Iran is despicable?


[edit on 2/4/05 by Kidfinger]



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
and then US never found the hundreds of thousands of mass graves.



‘Horrors of Iraq’s mass graves’
www.shianews.com...

Pics of Muhammad Sakran village.
hrw.org...

‘Iraq's Legacy of Terror: Mass Graves’
www.usaid.gov...

‘Mass Graves of Iraq: Uncovering Atrocities’
www.state.gov...

‘More mass graves found in Iraq’
www.abc.net.au...




[edit on 4-2-2005 by Ruins]



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 11:20 AM
link   
In months past, I would have said that doing so, would be political suicide...

However, Dubya has proved me wrong. I would think that an illegal war would be political suicide, but it ended up getting him re-elected, go figure...
It seems that over half of America (or so they'd have us believe) has given Bush carte blanche for any action that he fancies..



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 11:46 AM
link   
Simply amazing.


Originally posted by jupiter869
However, we are now hearing more and more about Iran’s treatment of its citizens as “abysmal”. Rice now says the Iranian regime's behavior in the area of human rights ''is something that is to be loathed''

Could you provide a link to those quotes...

No wait, nevermind...I can find plenty myself because....

PEOPLE HAVE BEEN SAYING THAT FOR YEARS!!! It hasn't increased at all (in fact, lately with the nuke talk, it's gone down). Maybe you're a little new to global politics and forign affairs, no?


Here's the Human Rights Watch link, (and there are PLENTY more pre Bush links about Iran) so please....reasearch before posting.
hrw.org...



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 11:56 AM
link   
Denied ignorance yourself.



Horrors of Iraq’s mass graves’ 1. www.shianews.com...

Link, speculation not actual accountability.



Pics of Muhammad Sakran village. 1. hrw.org...

Old pictures no accountability.



Iraq's Legacy of Terror: Mass Graves’
1. www.usaid.gov...
If these numbers prove accurate, they represent a crime against humanity surpassed only by the Rwandan genocide of 1994, Pol Pot's Cambodian killing fields in the 1970s, and the Nazi Holocaust of World War II.


Contradictory at the end speculations of accountability. Most of the graves found where from the first gulf war.




Mass Graves of Iraq: Uncovering Atrocities’
1. www.state.gov...



Old news of again speculations.






1. www.abc.net.au...


Old speculations of mass graves.



Tony Blair’s office admitted that the number of bodies that had been found in mass graves had been exaggerated by 88%. The number of bodies was put at 5,114 and the estimates of 300,000-400,000 unsubstantiated. They further stated that the remaining 215 suspected grave sites had yet to be examined and confirmed. The larger numbers were only based on estimates of estimates and when forensic teams went to the sites, claims of 10,000 buried converted into several hundred.

The British are the source of USAID’s report on the subject. Therein they also cite Human Rights Watch. But Human Rights Watch did not consider the conditions in Iraq defensible in terms of humanitarian intervention: “The lack of ongoing or imminent mass slaughter was itself sufficient to disqualify the invasion of Iraq as a humanitarian intervention.” Amnesty International is also enlisted as support.


The mass graves where never found the total of speculated to the amount of actually bodies found did not match.

www.interventionmag.com...

Now how many Iraqi has lost their lives since the invasion?

Speculation under the hundreds of thousands.

Reality we will never know because tags are not kept on civilian deaths since the war.

Deny ignorance, more people have been killed in Iraq since the invasion that during Sadams regime of terror.

But will remind speculations just like the mass graves.



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 12:00 PM
link   


More like our dear lovable, godly President is changing the reason.....but we must remember. God talks to him, so he knows what he's doing........scary isn't it!?


It worries me to think that this man hears mythical 'voices' in his head, claims they are from some higher power and actually acts upon them. Such mental instability in people should not be tolerated at the highest levels of government.



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
Simply amazing.


Originally posted by jupiter869
However, we are now hearing more and more about Iran’s treatment of its citizens as “abysmal”. Rice now says the Iranian regime's behavior in the area of human rights ''is something that is to be loathed''

Could you provide a link to those quotes...



You've got to be kidding me. It's plastered all over today's news.

Rice's direct quotes go like this:

''I don't think anybody thinks that the unelected mullahs who run that regime are a good thing for the Iranian people and for the region,'' she said Thursday. On Friday, she referred to Iran's leaders as ''an unelected few.''

She called the Iranian human-rights record ''abysmal.'' Earlier, Rice said the Iranian regime's behavior in that area and others ''is something to be loathed.''



[edit on 4-2-2005 by jupiter869]



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 12:15 PM
link   
The Bush administration has not decided to invade or attack Iran so of course no reason to attack Iran has ever been given which makes the entire premise of this thread illogical.



LONDON -- An attack on Iran "is simply not on the agenda," said U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on her first overseas visit.

Rice said in London that there's still room for diplomacy when it comes to dealing with Iran's nuclear ambitions. But while she told reporters in London that there are no plans to go to war with Iran, Rice wouldn't say whether the United States supports a change of government in Iran.

Source: WRAL.com



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Well it does not surprised me, remember that the Invasion of Iraq, started with the MWDs, and then move on to Sadam was a brutal dictator that killed many of his citizens, and then US never found the hundreds of thousands of mass graves and either the MWDs.

So is just the same pattern we are seen here.


Sometimes liberals need a memory jog:

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

If Bush belived there were WMD's, then he did nothing wrong. If he knew for a fact that there were none, then that's another story. But no one has given proof of that. Also no one can prove that the weapons weren't shipped to Syria.



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 01:24 PM
link   
So what is your point all I see a a whole paste and copy of the same stuff. Still No MWDs and only about 10,000 of bodies found.

Now how is this playing with the new "war on Iran" pre preparation agenda?

Very simple we are just re living the same all BS as with Iraq.

What is next?



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 01:34 PM
link   
WMDS! MASSACERS! Uh, oil? No, that is the truth.... DEMOCRACY! Now with Iran? WMDS! MASSACERS! Uh, oil? No, that is the truth.... DEMOCRACY! And what is even worse, the bush babies fall for it. AGAIN! "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me." Hey, I'm smarter then the president!



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 01:44 PM
link   
It all boils down to this;





posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
So what is your point all I see a a whole paste and copy of the same stuff. Still No MWDs and only about 10,000 of bodies found.

Now how is this playing with the new "war on Iran" pre preparation agenda?

Very simple we are just re living the same all BS as with Iraq.

What is next?


I guess since he only killed 10,000 instead of 300,000 he wasnt such a bad guy. since when did killing 10,000 civilians become acceptable? the truth lies somewhere in the middle of the left & right. of course Saddam had chemical weapons & the like. he wasnt the angel soome of you want to believe. of course Bush exxagerated the facts. he had to make sure everyone was on board. I'm not taking up for the moron Bush here either. just dont let the fact that he is a complete idiot and bald face liar fool you into thinking Hussein was anything close to a sane individual.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join