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.

 

NEWS: Iran Says US and Israel are the Real Nuclear Threats

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 30 2005 @ 11:08 AM
link   
According to Javad Zarif, Iran's ambassador to the U.N., The United States and Israel represent the real nuclear threats to the world. He goes on to say that the United States never dismantled their nuclear arsenal despite promising to disarm over 30 years ago with the 1970 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
 



www.reuters.com
The United States and Israel represent the real nuclear threat to the world, not Iran, Tehran's chief envoy to the United Nations said on Friday after an abortive conference on controlling nuclear weapons.

Javad Zarif, Iran's ambassador to the U.N., said the United States never intended to scrap its nuclear arsenal, despite promising to eventually disarm when it signed the 1970 nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the landmark arms control pact.

Zarif, in an interview with Reuters, said Israel, which is widely believed to have nuclear weapons, was the threat to the Middle East region. "There is unanimity on the threat that is posed not only by Israeli nuclear weapons but by its aggressive policy (in general)," he said.



Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


The U.S. is still insisting that Tehran, the capital of Iran, needs to stop its nuclear program which they fear may be intended to create Nuclear weapons.

Iran denies these allegations stating their program is peaceful. Javad Zarif claims that U.S. led attacks on Iran's nuclear program were a 'smoke screen to divert attention from its violations' specifically 'to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapon states.'




posted on May, 30 2005 @ 11:13 AM
link   
Irrespective of who says it, the United States and the other nuclear states that signed the NPT have failed to live up to their side of the bargain. They, in 30 years, made no real effort to dismantle their nuclear arsenals.

Why then should the non-nuclear states remain handtied whilst the other nuclear states get to keep theirs? There is no incentive.

This is not just about the United States and Israel, thats just the two main critics of Iran. This also includes Britain, France, Russia and China. Israel, India and Pakistan were never part of the NPT so you cant really hold them in the same light.

[edit on 30/5/05 by subz]



posted on May, 30 2005 @ 11:51 AM
link   
When the crossbow was invented, it was said "Here surely is a weapon that will end all wars." We've come so far since then...

Well, I just hope our new policy of preemptive nuclear strikes is going to be based on better 'intelligence' than what we were justifying the Iraqi invasion with. Hypocrisy is one thing, our new preemptive policy though is nothing short of Murder INC. Examples?
Did you know that UNOCAL was lobbying Congress to bomb Afghanistan nearly a full year before 9-11, Lybia was bombed on no better reason than some radio trasnmissions which were found to be faked by MOSSAD agents, Grenada was invaded for trade agreements with Cuba, Would we have nuked Cuba as a reaction to Operation Northwoods? Don't we have enough tritium floating around in the upper atmosphere? Did you know that Japan tried to surrender BEFORE we dropped the bombs that killed hundreds of thousands... I just don't see that we have the integrity in our government to sit back and let them use words like preemptive and nuclear in the same sentences. What the hell is Israel doing with Nuclear Missiles anyway? They are a confirmed terrorist sponsoring nation. How do they continue to operate outside of international law, when other nations are bombed and invaded for the same violations. I wonder why freemasonry and zionism are outlawed in arabic countries, and I wonder why we don't like that. Ah well, as always, "War is Peace, Ignorance is Strength, Freedom is Slavery".



posted on May, 30 2005 @ 01:03 PM
link   

According to Javad Zarif, Iran's ambassador to the U.N., The United States and Israel represent the real nuclear threats to the world.

What a shocker! Iran said that about us???



The U.S. is still insisting that Tehran, the capital of Iran, needs to stop its nuclear program which they fear may be intended to create Nuclear weapons.

Iran denies these allegations stating their program is peaceful.

Of course their intentions are peaceful. Why else would they build the facilities so far underground?


Why then should the non-nuclear states remain handtied whilst the other nuclear states get to keep theirs?

This isn't about water rights or trade agreements. This is about technology that can destroy all life on earth. To allow it to proliferate is irresponsible, especially to unstable regions.

Why should we be allowed to keep ours while denying it to Iran? Because the genie is out of the bottle, and there is no turning back. What guarantees do we have that they would not continue developing nuclear weapons if we destroyed all of ours?



posted on May, 30 2005 @ 01:52 PM
link   
You are aware that the US is trying to use nuclear weapons as preemptive weapons against nuclear and non-nuclear capable countries alike right?

How is the US to be considered responsible with its actions and plans where Iran would not be?



posted on May, 30 2005 @ 10:25 PM
link   
No, but I am aware that a pre-emptive strike is one contingency plan among hundreds of such plans that the DoD has.

The existence of a plan does not translate to it's execution.



posted on May, 30 2005 @ 10:39 PM
link   


Iran Says US and Israel are the Real Nuclear Threats


And they should never forget that. They should also never forget that the US has never abused it's nuclear power and that we have actively sought nuclear containment.



posted on May, 30 2005 @ 11:16 PM
link   
It isn't a contingency plan, it is now POLICY. There's a huge difference.



posted on May, 31 2005 @ 02:57 AM
link   


GradyPhilpott
And they should never forget that. They should also never forget that the US has never abused it's nuclear power and that we have actively sought nuclear containment.


Have you forgotten World War 2 - As twitchy said: Japan was willing to surrender BEFORE the US dropped its nuclear weapons... My understanding is that as soon as Pearl Harbour happened, Japan started to put the peace process into action... And there is evidence to suggest that the US initated Pearl Harbour (or atleast knew about in advance)...

Are people aware that the secret documents regarding Pearl Harbour, and why the US got involved in WW2 - were due to come out a year or two ago (via the freedom of information act) - But the government surpressed those files for another 50 years (makes you think)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Might I once again say; THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST IRAN IS/HAS/WANTS TO DEVELOP NUCLEAR WEAPONS!!!

All this hype around it is merely the US media-machine gearing up for an invasion into Iran... You can see on FoxNews, they are now saying that Al Zarqawi is in Iran... Its rediculously plain to see what is happening... The US is making one last attempt at slowing down China and its gains toward super-power status... So they have taken control of Chinas biggest producers of oil... Iraq and now Iran...



posted on May, 31 2005 @ 03:31 AM
link   
Twitchy is sadly mistaken. The Japanese had vowed to fight for the homeland to the very last individual. It has been estimated that more than a million American lives were saved by dropping the bombs on Japan.

It should also be noted that prior to the development of the bomb, just one month before it was dropped, the plan was to let Russia have Japan after the war. Upon hearing this, one Japanese academic discussing this matter with Stephen Ambrose, WWII historian, exclaimed, "Thank God you dropped the bomb." He understood how much more devastating Stalinist rule over Japan would have been in the long run. At the time the decsion was made to nuke Japan, it was the sanest of the available choices of that time.

Based on the hindsight of those who criticize the use of nuclear bombs against Japan, one just as well might argue that since the bomb was going to be used anyway, the US could have saved 10s of thousands of lives by avoiding the island invasions of the Pacific. The truth is that no one knew just how the war might have played out and those who were the decision makers of the day, made the best decsions, because we won the war and put an end to Japanese imperialism.




The atomic bomb and it's use over the two Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is still a source of heated debate even over fifty years later. Many people on both sides -Japan and The United States- hold the belief that Truman's decision to drop the bomb was a mistake and that under no circumstances should such drastic measures be taken in war.

What these people do not realize are the far more horrible alternatives than the destruction of just two cities: an invasion of mainland Japan where millions of more deaths would have occurred, Soviet aid resulting in the division of Japan into a communist nation and the destruction of their culture, the deaths of thousands of Allied prisoners of war held in Japan, and the threat of renewed hostilities from Japan not to mention the possibility of several more years of bloody conflict.

www.freeessays.cc...



[edit on 05/5/31 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on May, 31 2005 @ 03:48 AM
link   
No, Grady, I'm not. Two weeks before the bombs were dropped, Japan Tried to surrender under conditions which were unacceptable to the US. Despite this obvious attempt to bring the war to a conclusion, we nuked them and killed hundreds of thousands. Yes, Grady, they tried to surrender, TWO WEEKS BEFORE THE BOMBS FELL. Do I really need to do your homework for you?

Deny Ignorance also means to accept truth.



posted on May, 31 2005 @ 03:58 AM
link   
They offered a conditional surrender. The United States demanded an unconditional surrender and rightly so. Given the terror rendered by the Japanese on East Asia and the Pacific, conditional surrender was unacceptable. I think you need to bone up on the atrocities committed by the Japanese over the span of some fifteen years prior to 1945.

I'm not saying that in hindsight things might have been better done otherwise, I'm only defending those who had to make the hard decisions in the heat of the moment.

As it turned out, Japan came to worship Douglas MacArthur for his diplomatic rule over post-war Japan and the the American infusion of cash and assistance in rebuilding infrastructure has turned Japan into a world player in the international market, in stark contrast to the Soviet eastern-bloc European nations.



posted on May, 31 2005 @ 04:17 AM
link   
actualy atm iran is correct in their acessment. since both issrial and the us currantly have nukes THEY ARE THE THREAT. it's a little difficult to be a threat when you don't have acess to such weapons. now if and when they start to build their own weapons they will become a more equil threat as both the us, russia, isrial, or anyone else who also has the weapons. i say more so as they still will not have quite so many as most countries that already have them.

point is that ANY COUNTRY WITH NUKES CAN BE CONSIDDERED A THREAT. people like to go on about stability and the mental capacity/stability of country's leaders. any leader can go insane at any time, any country may not be stable. as such why are some countries alowed to have nukes while others are not. if you want to stop countries from haveing nukes, then start the process and get rid of all of yours FIRST. otherwise such a nation is being hypicritical.



posted on May, 31 2005 @ 10:03 AM
link   
Can some one give me a legal reason that prevents Iran from withdrawing from the NPT and developing nuclear weapons if they want?

Let me help you, there are none.

Hence the fact that if countries like the United States want to stop countries like Iran from doing what they are legally entitled to they should provide incentives. The threat of force is useless, as can be seen with North Korea, it only exacerbates the confrontation and accelerates the countries efforts to go nuclear.

Clinton understood it, Bush Snr. got it, Bush Jr. thinks countries should do as they are told. It doesnt work like that as can be seen here.

Whats the solution? Bomb countries into ash that dont bend to the United State's illegal demands? Or engage in diplomacy and negotiations?

Well when Bush Co is making an absolute fortune for daddy's Carlye Group from bombing said countries into ash I dont think negotiations will be happening soon.

[edit on 31/5/05 by subz]



posted on May, 31 2005 @ 10:19 AM
link   
The U.S. and Israel are not nuclear 'threats'.

Iran is a nation steeped in Islamic-fundamentalism and aspires to be the pinnacle of Muslim power. Nuclear capability in the hands of Iran would be easily filtered throughout the muslim world for use against the any western power.



posted on May, 31 2005 @ 11:23 AM
link   
To say that Japan began attempting peace with the US right after Pearl Harbor is such an outright lie that it offends me to even see it posted on ATSNN.

Also, I'm not sure if we're talking reality here, but if we could try for a moment... Dismissing a nation's conditional surrender is not a crime. You're surrendering because you have lost. As such you are in no position to set demands of surrender. No nation would accept another's surrender unless it's on terms that benefit them. Correct? So I don't see either claim about the horrible US policies in WW2 to be valid.

This entire thing is bizarre to me. Why does anyone consider it newsworthy every time an Iranian diplomat makes comments about Israel/US or an American/Israel diplomat makes comments about Iran.

EARTH TO EVERYONE: THESE PARTIES DO NOT LIKE EACH OTHER. Comments will continue and continue and continue. Is this really news anymore? I think it's about as newsworthy as a campaign advertisement.



posted on May, 31 2005 @ 12:42 PM
link   
In other news:

OJ says "The real murder threat is the "real" killer"
ENRON claims" The real ripoff artist is the people wo gave us their retirement money"
Jeffrey Dahlmer claims" The real killer is the fast food industry for making me hungry".


Amazing how the guilty parties always find someone else to blame. The nation that has claimed in so many words that it desires and would use such a device is the threat. If they didn't want to be perceived as a threat, then quit making speeches from your top policymakers that you *are* a threat.

But hey, a hostile-to-America nation has made a claim. It now must be plastered across the front pages as news, and given all the credibility of the Honest Truth.

Then when there's a glowing crater in Israel, they can brag about doing it with one side of their mouth, and claim they weren't a threat from the other.

Sheesh, when we invaded Iraq, we gave Saddam a week's notice, and a simple list of things to do to avoid it. We never claimed to *not* be a threat. Iran wants to weild the nuclear stick, then hit people upside the head with it and then claim "what stick?"



posted on May, 31 2005 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

And they should never forget that. They should also never forget that the US has never abused it's nuclear power and that we have actively sought nuclear containment.


no it just uses its miliatry strength to bullie other nations
so Iran in a conventional war would lose # loads
but with a nuclear deturrent the US would shut up for once


Originally posted by periwinkle blue
The U.S. and Israel are not nuclear 'threats'.
[/quote

[sarcasem] israel is a great country it has never done anything wrong
it has never broken international laws



posted on May, 31 2005 @ 12:51 PM
link   
A guy down my street was arrested on Sunday. Drugs and an automatic weapon were found.

Automatic weapons are illegal in the law of the land. But he got one, so now I should too?

Here's the clincher. America developed it's own nuclear weapons technology. It paid the price in social disorder and in the guilt of the scientists who developed it. We *know* the evil of the weapon in combat. I've personally had the chance to talk to the radio operator of the Bock's Car that dropped the Nagisaki device. I heard him speak of the nightmares and the guilt. I watched japanese veterans apologize to *him* for their nation making it necessary for his soul to pay the price.

America has had nuclear weapons for over 50 years and have not used a single one in combat. We know the cost. We've paid it again and again. Iran has not paid any of the social cost, will not show their people the devastation and suffering still happening in Japan. Iran will use the weapon they get, at the slightest provocation by Israel or America. They won't wait for a 9/11 style attack, a single airliner downed intentionally or accidentally will be enough. Iran has reacted this way in the past, there is no logical reason to assume otherwise.

We created the Bomb, and wish to hell we could stuff the genie back into the bottle. You want to rub the bottle and let more genies out. let them deal with the guilt of warriors and the pictures of flash-burned children for decades being shown again and again, before they dare to create a warhead from technologies they bought with money from oil sold to nations they condemn.


Originally posted by subz
Irrespective of who says it, the United States and the other nuclear states that signed the NPT have failed to live up to their side of the bargain. They, in 30 years, made no real effort to dismantle their nuclear arsenals.

Why then should the non-nuclear states remain handtied whilst the other nuclear states get to keep theirs? There is no incentive.

This is not just about the United States and Israel, thats just the two main critics of Iran. This also includes Britain, France, Russia and China. Israel, India and Pakistan were never part of the NPT so you cant really hold them in the same light.

[edit on 30/5/05 by subz]



posted on May, 31 2005 @ 12:56 PM
link   
Check into that a little more. Japan had offered "surrender" more than once before. And continued to advance over mainland China and the Pacific. And attempt risky strikes against civilian targets on the Pacific US coast.

To Japan, America was weak minded and easily confused. They assumed we would do anything to maintian the isolationist "peace" of before the war. To keep taking "peace" meant confusion to their enemies. Read up on some Sun Tzu. There was never any intention of peace.

For someone to buy the "well, we snuck up and shot you in the back, and now we want to talk peace while you're down" as a justification to add further condemnation to the nuclear issue is silly at best. Veterans who served in the Pacific witnessed the "peace" process first hand. Not to mention the POW's and the Vietnamese people.


Originally posted by ghostsoldier


GradyPhilpott
And they should never forget that. They should also never forget that the US has never abused it's nuclear power and that we have actively sought nuclear containment.


Have you forgotten World War 2 - As twitchy said: Japan was willing to surrender BEFORE the US dropped its nuclear weapons... My understanding is that as soon as Pearl Harbour happened, Japan started to put the peace process into action... And there is evidence to suggest that the US initated Pearl Harbour (or atleast knew about in advance)...

Are people aware that the secret documents regarding Pearl Harbour, and why the US got involved in WW2 - were due to come out a year or two ago (via the freedom of information act) - But the government surpressed those files for another 50 years (makes you think)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Might I once again say; THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST IRAN IS/HAS/WANTS TO DEVELOP NUCLEAR WEAPONS!!!

All this hype around it is merely the US media-machine gearing up for an invasion into Iran... You can see on FoxNews, they are now saying that Al Zarqawi is in Iran... Its rediculously plain to see what is happening... The US is making one last attempt at slowing down China and its gains toward super-power status... So they have taken control of Chinas biggest producers of oil... Iraq and now Iran...



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join