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.

 

Tehran's brutallity opens path for Trump to flex on Iran

page: 8
14
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 2 2018 @ 01:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Asktheanimals

Publicly supporting the protestors and telling the Iranian government the world is watching how they treat the protestors is not interfering in Iran's affairs..


No doubt.

But twisting it into military intervention propaganda is is.


Where did anyone say anything about intervention?




posted on Jan, 2 2018 @ 01:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Pretty sure the OP did.



posted on Jan, 2 2018 @ 01:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Theprodicalson

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: kelbtalfenek
a reply to: TinfoilTP

Do you really think that war is the solution? How about the US just mind it's own business for once in this 21st Century?


How did that mindset work at Munich?


If you want war so much then you willing to volunteer to fight it ? Or you just going to cluck from the sidelines like a chicken hawk?


So you cant answer the question.... ok

As for volunteering absolutely I would. I refuse to allow the world to descend back into a world war simply because people, such as yourself, have no spine.



Iran are in no position to cause a world war, unless the USA start it and drag russia in.
I consider Iran no threat to me.

North korea are the ones likely to start a world war and should be the enemy we concentrate on. And I would sign up and fight in that war......"how that for no spine?"



posted on Jan, 2 2018 @ 01:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: Xcathdra

Pretty sure the OP did.


Yes, the op did. However he was referring to comments made by President Trump, who has not advocated attacking Iran.



posted on Jan, 2 2018 @ 01:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Theprodicalson

The poster I responded to thinks otherwise and that was what my response was in relation to.



posted on Jan, 2 2018 @ 02:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

I was talking about the war drum climate of this thread.



posted on Jan, 2 2018 @ 02:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: Xcathdra

I was talking about the war drum climate of this thread.


Remember this is the war drum forum titled WWIII.

Iran is poised to descend into full blown civil war. Their nuclear weapons and missiles will not be simply allowed to fall into the hands of rogue or desperate factions. Even when Turkey was on the verge of a coup, the nukes were secured same as Pakistan. Iran is destabilizing from within, powers from outside will act it is inevitable.



posted on Jan, 2 2018 @ 02:54 PM
link   
a reply to: TinfoilTP

Iran do not have nukes. Even Mossad has stated this.

If Iran wanted nukes, they would of had them a decade ago..


And every time the west gets involved in a middle easten civil war, we just mess things up more.

Let Iranians sort there own country out.



posted on Jan, 2 2018 @ 03:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: Xcathdra

I was talking about the war drum climate of this thread.


Remember this is the war drum forum titled WWIII.

Iran is poised to descend into full blown civil war. Their nuclear weapons and missiles will not be simply allowed to fall into the hands of rogue or desperate factions. Even when Turkey was on the verge of a coup, the nukes were secured same as Pakistan. Iran is destabilizing from within, powers from outside will act it is inevitable.


A full blown civil war you want to ensure by attacking them in the middle of a crisis.

An awful lot of material / hard questions you dodged back there.

Giddy up brother.




posted on Jan, 2 2018 @ 04:41 PM
link   
Flex? You mean do the same thing all US presidents do and just spout rhetoric and a few military exercises nearby?



posted on Jan, 2 2018 @ 04:42 PM
link   
a reply to: sdcigarpig

A reasonable non-biased assessment from David Milliband

www.theatlantic.com...

Apparently now phone lines and the internet are completely down - pretty much a media black out as expected. What’s going down behind closed doors - I don’t like to think.

Bob



posted on Jan, 2 2018 @ 06:19 PM
link   
a reply to: DrBobH

The winning move for the US is not to play. Don't get involved in the internal affairs of Iran, but watch. If the current government wins this round, then it will mean that nothing is lost or gained. However, if the opposition manages to pull off a coup, open diplomatic relations slowly with the country, but do not go in with expectations and try to dictate to them on anything. That is what caused this mess in the first place where Iran sits now.



posted on Jan, 2 2018 @ 06:31 PM
link   
a reply to: sdcigarpig

Nope!

They want a bunch of chest beating Neocon's to TELL them what to do. And after all we've put them through the past 70 years they're totally just gonna go with it. And world peace at last.




posted on Jan, 2 2018 @ 07:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: sdcigarpig

Nope!

They want a bunch of chest beating Neocon's to TELL them what to do. And after all we've put them through the past 70 years they're totally just gonna go with it. And world peace at last.



When Syria turned into a bloodbath, the first and primary concern was the removal of all those stockpiled weapons of mass destruction that nobody seems to believe anybody had but there they were, getting hauled away by the Russians finally.



posted on Jan, 2 2018 @ 08:16 PM
link   
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

How has it been for the middle east in the last 40 years? From all accounts, at least three countries that had brutal dictators that were installed and supported by the USA that turned around and bit the US on the proverbial rump. Iran, going to be an Islamic state, cause the USA installed a dictator on the throne and kept the man there, where he was brutal and cracked down on his people to the point where they were willing to accept a religious fanatic.

And then Iraq, how was that with Sadam? What happened to the good friend of the USA? Oh that is right, we had to go in and remove him from power.

The point being, that if you want the support of the people of Iran, then do not go in with the intention to remove their government, but let them do it on their own and set the terms on how they want their country to run. Then once the dust has settled, look. As I stated before, if there has been a governmental change, offer an olive branch, if not then we have not wasted time or resources on a possible failed change, and further fanned the flames of war there in that region of the world.



posted on Jan, 2 2018 @ 10:24 PM
link   
a reply to: TinfoilTP

If we hadnt blown up Syria there'd be no need to haul WMD's away.

If we hadnt been in Iran starting a revolution this week there'd be no need to haul WMD's away.

If we hadnt sold Hussein chemical weapons....



posted on Jan, 2 2018 @ 10:26 PM
link   
a reply to: sdcigarpig


The point being, that if you want the support of the people of Iran, then do not go in with the intention to remove their government, but let them do it on their own and set the terms on how they want their country to run.

'They' don't care about people, they want to libya-ize, Syria-ize Iran, period.

How many dead there are in the process of destruction matters less than the Resources will still be there when the smoke clears.



posted on Jan, 2 2018 @ 10:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: TinfoilTP

If we hadnt blown up Syria there'd be no need to haul WMD's away.

If we hadnt been in Iran starting a revolution this week there'd be no need to haul WMD's away.

If we hadnt sold Hussein chemical weapons....

If Qaddafi hadn't tried to unify Africa, form an African National Bank and African satellite communications company, or sell Oil for Gold...



posted on Jan, 2 2018 @ 10:38 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Well then we will end up with a shortage in the oil, for a short time as the country goes through turmoil, and either the Ayatollah remains in power, but cracks down even harder, or another dictator who looks at the US with hatred and seeks to strike back anyway he can, thus causing far worse in the region, but solidifying his power, and strengthening his alliances around the world. And all the while directing his minister in OPEC to work with who they can to further put crimp in the oil shipments to the US and reduce production down to where it hurts, and charging more per barrel of oil.

And when gas prices start to raise, due to an oil shortage and or refinery shut down, they will sit back and watch, being far more obstinate to the USA, and refusing to talk to the USA and having the USA go through who they choose to speak for them, like say China or Russia.



posted on Jan, 2 2018 @ 10:45 PM
link   
a reply to: sdcigarpig

I think the country will be so unstable it will be like Libya, a hundred factions dividing the country, killing each other in a bid for power, refugees hemorrhaging to every country around, no water, power, electricity, hospital, schools, police or fire.

But out there, untouched on the horizon will be the refineries, circled by a ring of NATO steel, protecting the precious oil for Exxon, Shell and BP.

Welcome to the New Middle East Iran, the West is about to get Medieval on your ass.




top topics



 
14
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join