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.
Brigadier General Mohammad Ali Jafari:"Iran will retaliate against any stupid moves by Israel
Originally posted by subz
Israel will not act unilaterally? Does this mean a pre-emptive strike is still on the cards as far as Iran is concerned? Who will do it with the Israelis? They didnt say they wouldnt attack, just that they wouldnt do it alone. Will America assist?
There has been absolutely no proof backing up the claims of Iran's nuclear weapons ambition. Atleast they tried to fake evidence surrounding Saddam's WMDs. They havent even attempted such a lie this time, they've just expected people to trust them on this one. Given their previous record I would not believe Bush or Blair if they said the sky was blue.
Boy who cried wolf, actual threat or a complete lie I believe no body has the right to strike out at a nation that has not attacked any one.
They have threatend Israel due to their human rights violations with the Palestinians, which is understandable IMHO. Why can America be the Worlds only human rights policeman and threaten/invade those who abuse human rights? They have clearly stated however that they will not attack Israel unless attacked themselves.
Brigadier General Mohammad Ali Jafari:"Iran will retaliate against any stupid moves by Israel
Basically, what has Iran done that America hasnt done themselves?
Broke the NPT treaty? - The US walks away from treaties it has personally authoured and wouldnt think twice about shirking from a treaty if it wanted to. There is also no proof that the Iranians have even broken the NPT and have complied fully with the IAEA inspection process.
Threatend a country that is violating human rights? - The US has militarily intervened in Yugoslavia and Somalia for human rights reasons. It has threatend North Korea and China for its human rights violations. It has invaded Iraq and Afghanistan in the last 4 years.
Where is the proof that they are striving for nuclear weapons? None has been offered other than hearsay.
This is international bullying, nothing more and nothing less. "Do as I say, not as I do"
[edit on 14/4/05 by subz]
Originally posted by subz
There has been absolutely no proof backing up the claims of Iran's nuclear weapons ambition. Atleast they tried to fake evidence surrounding Saddam's WMDs. They havent even attempted such a lie this time, they've just expected people to trust them on this one. Given their previous record I would not believe Bush or Blair if they said the sky was blue.
Originally posted by Phugedaboudet
Just how many cold-war style, low power efficiency reactors does a nation have to build before you'll believe they're working to build nuclear weapons?
Originally posted by the_oleneo
Get your facts straight. Bush and Blair relied on the same intel that other foreign governments and the United Nations have on Iraq for over a decade. Saddam did have WMD
Originally posted by the_oleneo
You can believe the sky is really blue if you're wearing blindfolded and being led to a pit where you'll be summarily executed for speaking out against Saddam.
Originally posted by FredT
Subz,
If Iran had peaceful intent for its nuclear program, why did they refuse the offer of a light water reactor? There really is only one reason for breeder type reactor, and centrifuges buried in deep underground bases no?
Also, id love to see the list of treaties that the US has pulled out of. At any rate, the NPT is one that makes sense and should be enforced and adhered to.
From MSNBC
In its first year the administration withdrew from five international treaties—and did so as brusquely as it could. It reneged on virtually every diplomatic effort that the Clinton administration had engaged in, from North Korea to the Middle East, often overturning public statements from Colin Powell supporting these efforts. It developed a language and diplomatic style that seemed calculated to offend the world. (President Bush has placed a portrait of Theodore Roosevelt in the White House. TR’s most famous words of advice are worth recalling: “Speak softly and carry a big stick.”) Key figures in the administration rarely traveled, foreign visitors were treated to perfunctory office visits, and state dinners were unheard of.
Originally posted by subz
Why should I bother to get my facts straight when neither Bush or Blair bothered to? Any mistake I make will result in nothing more than a mere embarrasment on my behalf. The monumental cock-up on behalf of Bush and Blair have resulted in the death of no less than 19,770 Iraqi civilians.
Originally posted by subz
The facts are that Saddam did have chemical and biological weapons but after the First Gulf War they were destroyed and the programs were not revived. Now how do you prove a negative? How do you actually prove to inspectors and a beligerent President of the United States that you categorically do not have any WMDs? Its impossible. The onus should of been on the invading beligerants to prove that they actually did have WMDs BEFORE invading. They said they had such proof but nothing materialised from this.
Originally posted by subz
Their excuse? That Saddam sent all his WMD's to Syria. Wheres the satellite imagery of such a vast operation? You can see satellite imagery of tank and troop manouvers that Saddam's Army carried out. Where are the images of vast swathes of trucks and machinery that must of been transported to Syria? Again, is the onus of Saddam to prove a negative? That infact he did not transport WMD's to Syria? Thats proposterous to even start to prove. How can you prove a negative?
Originally posted by subz
What happens in America when you create a stamp with the image of Bush Jr. on it with a gun to his head? You get a nice interogation by the Secret Service thats what. Until your own patriotic blindfold comes off you will continue to believe that everything is going swimmingly in your own country when in fact you have been had and your rights are summarily being erased.
Originally posted by the_oleneo
Seem you cared more about those 20,000 Iraqi citizens "killed" by "Bush-Blair war junta", as you silly anti-war moonbats have been raving about, than an estimated 1 millions Iraqis perished under Saddam,
Originally posted by the_oleneo
This is from the Duelfer Report. Saddam had every intention to PRESERVE his WMD programs secretly while "honoring" the UNSC resolutions with the goal of ending sanctions by showing his hands "clean" of WMD development after each initial inspection regime:
Originally posted by the_oleneo
Read here: www.washingtontimes.com...
Regarding the explosives, the new Iraqi government reported that 194.7 metric tons of HMX, or high-melting-point explosive, and 141.2 metric tons of RDX, or rapid-detonation explosive, and 5.8 metric tons of PETN, or pentaerythritol tetranitrate, were missing.
The material is used in nuclear weapons and also in making military "plastic" high explosive.
Documents reviewed by the official included itineraries of military units involved in the truck shipments to Syria. The materials outlined in the documents included missile components, MiG jet parts, tank parts and chemicals used to make chemical weapons, the official said.
The Russian arms-removal program was initiated after Yevgeny Primakov, the former Russian intelligence chief, could not persuade Saddam to give in to U.S. and Western demands, this official said.
Originally posted by the_oleneo
Oh, wow, you believed in anything! Just for the records, any direct, indirect or implied threat of violence or murder you make against the President of the United States (or the Vice President, from on down) get a knock on your door and tons of questions from the US Secret Services. Their job is to protect the PRESIDENT and the Office of the Presidency, not the name of the person who is the President of the United States.
Originally posted by the_oleneo
subz, you're nothing but a typical anti-American tool. That's what you are.
Seem you cared more about those 20,000 Iraqi citizens "killed" by "Bush-Blair war junta", as you silly anti-war moonbats have been raving about, than an estimated 1 millions Iraqis perished under Saddam, half were summarily executed in various criminal methods of suppression and human right violations
Originally posted by stumason
Care to cite a source for your 1 million claim? I know its utter BS. The Foreign Secretary of the UK himself claims it was only 300,000 (which is still probably hyped for propaganda, latest figures put it nearer 100,000). It only reaches 1 million of you include the deaths as a direct result of sanctions.
posted by the_oleneo
Any international law or treaty bestows or foist upon the United States without consent or consultation is a VIOLATION AND INFRINGEMENT to each and every state's sovereignty! Therefore no state shall oblige or conform to any international law or treaty without the consent of the people living in the state or without consulting with the neighboring states and its elected representatives. Period.
posted by the_oleneo
Throughout the entire reign of Saddam Hussein (30+ years).
Originally posted by stumason
Please, all you pro-Iran War lot, give me one non-hypocritical reason why Iran should NOT have Nukes?
It is too dangerous for them to nuclear weapons!! Once they have nukes, the entire country is targeted for a nuclear wipe-out (by Israel). Same for Pakistan and India (all this over Kashmir, for God's sake!).
And under the hands of the mullahs who have a special hatred for Israel and the United States?
And how would you know that the mullahs won't share its nukes with any terrorist with a boatload of money up-front?
How would you know that?! Are you going to rely on the words of the mullahs in the near future, "We do not share or provide our nuclear materials with any terrorist," contrarily to their proven supports of terrorism in the past?!
Originally posted by stumason
So...the US shouldn't kowtow to international law because the people didn't agree to it? What about your Government YOU elected signing those treaties?
Originally posted by stumason
Erm.....what are you trying to say there?