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.

 

Iran watch out!!! Canada says no nukes for you!

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 07:37 AM
link   
Whew! We can all breathe a little bit easier today. Canada has officially stated Iran cannot have nukes. I will sleep better tonight.

All joking aside, this is actually very telling. Canada is typically a neutral entity now days, and for Martin to make statements denying Iran nukes tells me the world may be coming around on Iran.

www.iranfocus.com...

“Prime Minister Paul Martin said Sunday that world inaction on Iran's moves toward becoming a nuclear power is "simply unacceptable."

"I do not believe that the world can simply stand by and watch the possibility of Iran going from step-to-step towards the creation of making itself a nuclear power," he told reporters after meeting Jean-Claude Juncker, president of the EU Council, in Niagara-on-the-Lake, Ont.

President of the Council of the European Union Jean-Claude Juncker and Prime Minister Paul Martin in Niagara-on-the-Lake.

"It is simply unacceptable in a world in which we all want to limit the threat of nuclear proliferation that the world is unable to come to a satisfactory agreement with Iran."

Its all coming together now guys. War with Iran will begin shortly. I guess within 6-12 months.



Maybe Canada will make a preemptive strike and send them some infected beef?





posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 10:28 AM
link   
Funny how no one replied.

Everyone wants to make the US out as the big bad wolf here, when in actuality just about every western country has the same problem with Iran going nuclear.

Canada
France
UK
Germany
US

All have publically said that Iran gaining nuclear weapons is unacceptable.

So, I pose a question to you all (especially those outside the US):

Will you condem your own country if they attack Iran to prevent them from arming?

Because frankly, I can already hear the bitching about the US going into Iran. I don't want to hear that it's OK when France, Canada, and Germany get involved.



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 10:28 AM
link   
Funny how no one replied.

Everyone wants to make the US out as the big bad wolf here, when in actuality just about every western country has the same problem with Iran going nuclear.

Canada
France
UK
Germany
US

All have publically said that Iran gaining nuclear weapons is unacceptable.

So, I pose a question to you all (especially those outside the US):

Will you condem your own country if they attack Iran to prevent them from arming?

Because frankly, I can already hear the bitching about the US going into Iran. I don't want to hear that it's OK when France, Canada, and Germany get involved.



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 10:58 AM
link   
....than no one replying is that the rest of the world will do NOTHING to prevent Iran from developing or acquiring nuclear weapons. Nope, they will simply sit on their behinds and wait for the United States to do something about it for them
! Then with all of their self-righteous indignation, they will make the US culpable for anything that might go wrong... as is typical.



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 10:59 AM
link   
Sure I would complain, the notion that Middle-Eastern countries can not be responsible for a nuclear arsenal is a little off, especially when we support Israel's nuclear stockpile. I don't think Iran would first strike anyone, consider who it would attack, the US... no matter how "irrational" you think they are I highly doubt they would attack the US with nuclear weapons given the devastating counter-strike that would come from the US as well as the global community. Same goes for Israel, if they attacked Israel with nuclear weapons it would be self defeating for two reasons.

1) Israeli second-strike capability is assured by subs and
2) Holy land would be unclaimable if it is plagued by nuclear fallout, defeating the cause for the holy war in the first place.

Most likely Iran just wants to join the nuclear club and the associate status and powe that comes with it, they might also be concerned about a possible US invasion, so it is a deterrent to the US as well as Israeli forces/nuclear arms.

Do you really think a country would be willing to break the nuclear firebreak just because they are "crazy"? Surely even if the leader is insane there would be some people in his confidence who would persuade him not to attack, or even assassinate him before he could push "the button." Wouldn't you kill Bush if he was about to launch an unprovoked nuclear attack against Russia which would be SURE to bring a counter-attack which would devastate the US and kill your family? I would hope you would.



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 11:42 AM
link   
The threat goes like this...

Iran is incredibly radical, in terms of an Islamic state, which in fact means they're sorta jihadi suicidal. Yea Yea Yea , the world knows this already, hence Paul Martin's PR move coming out saying "No Soup" for Iran. Nobody wants to see Iran acquire a nuclear stock pile because it's pretty simple, Iran is fanatical enough to use it without considering the repercussions.

Yes that would spell the end of Mankind.. Of course, this would be the US propaganda machine a second time around casting fear spells on their citizens.
Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, you pick one too many bones and before you know it Rome has burnt to the ground..



[edit on 21-6-2005 by syntaxer]



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 01:21 PM
link   
IMO Paul should be more mindful of his house at home. Our health care is under attack, they have vowed same sex marriage, massive flooding in the west will need care, and whatever happened to the gomery inquiry?

Ultimately no one wants anyone to have nukes, their are a pointless weapn deserved only for last resorts or cowards that need to feel safe. That is something I have never understood about America and maybe a pro military fella can help me out with this. ..(off topic but just FMI)

From watching the AMerican military machine go, it is hard not to be impressed. That is indeed some force. So why the need for so many nukes? One for a deterent maybe. Maybe another for back up but how many hundreds does the States have? It's crazy. Thankfully until recently they always acted sanely so it wasn't a concern, but I have always found it to be rather silly to have them when it is evident that any military fight would so incredibly favour the States, that Nukes shouldn't even be an issue.




posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 01:28 PM
link   
It's a positive step of course I applaud Canada for taking a stand.

My only question is what is Canada going to do about it? Send an army of beavers to gnaw the missiles in half?



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
It's a positive step of course I applaud Canada for taking a stand.

My only question is what is Canada going to do about it? Send an army of beavers to gnaw the missiles in half?


Buddy, come on now. We could send our greatest weapon - our personality.Once they realize we are so great, that they will be forced to hand over all weapons and join in a rousing rendition of Kumbya - my lord...kumbya...

Everyone!!!



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 01:44 PM
link   
I also applaud Canada for taking a tough stand.....we all know they can't do anything about Irans nuclear weapons program, but they do have a big friend next door who can.

The fact is they made the right call.


Maximu§



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 01:48 PM
link   
I guess they are a bit slow in stating this then. As far as am aware almost all western and EU countries are against Iran getting nukes.

As for them getting nuclear energy production, the countries against are very few.



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 03:03 PM
link   
Good for Martin and Canada to denounce Iran getting nuclear weapons, and good for France, Germany and England for doing the same. The only problem I have with those four countries is that they wont do anything to back up their stance, simply saying no won't do anything. Now they have to take it one step further and either go towards sanctions or the military option.

[edit on 21-6-2005 by WestPoint23]



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Now they have to take it one step further and either go towards sanctions or the military option.


Sanctions, likely. Millitary action, not without UN support.



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Good for Martin and Canada to denounce Iran getting nuclear weapons, and good for France, Germany and England for doing the same. The only problem I have with those four countries is that they wont do anything to back up their stance, simply saying no won't do anything. Now they have to take it one step further and either go towards sanctions or the military option.

[edit on 21-6-2005 by WestPoint23]


Frankly westpoint, "their stance" has had a massive effect. There is still zero proof Iran are trying or anywhere near gaining nuclear weapons, only rumours from enemies. The IAEE are doing a wonderful job.

Niether heavy sanctions or military action have proved effective in the recent past, on any country.

Time to use our brains for a change eh, sometimes things are looked at in a very simplistic way, that is all of our downfalls.



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kriz_4
Niether heavy sanctions or military action have proved effective in the recent past, on any country.


What about Libya? Mind you it took YEARS.



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Will you condemn your own country if they attack Iran to prevent them from arming?

from the UK, damn right i will.

They will attack Iran and axis of evil whatever the so called premise, with the bogus war on terrorism and WMD.
Another step closer to greater Isr, WW3, the NWO.

Depleted Uranium in Iraq for thousands of years, cancer causing, deformed children, 300,000 dead, do you call that a victory.

All leaders from every country are on the same side, while the people are just herded.
I will be a conscientious objector if there was a draft for a war that's just orchestrated, while the leaders are in their ivory towers or billion dollar bunkers, while the masses are slaughtered.



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by Kriz_4
Niether heavy sanctions or military action have proved effective in the recent past, on any country.


What about Libya? Mind you it took YEARS.


And just look at the amount of suffering it caused, or is that all forgotten now. It "worked"...I guess...

I just think we should be more "aware" of others. The way we as a species are dealing with each other, is just not working too well right now..



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kriz_4
And just look at the amount of suffering it caused, or is that all forgotten now. It "worked"...I guess...


OK, and what suffering did it cause? I mean, to the west. Hell we just put things in place and let them fly. Honestly I had forgotten about Libya about 18 years ago, then BAM, Qaudaffi gets with the program. Worked.

Did his people suffer because of the sanctions? Maybe. Also, maybe that is what aided the change there.



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 06:03 PM
link   

OK, and what suffering did it cause? I mean, to the west.


Very little. Your point?



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kriz_4

OK, and what suffering did it cause? I mean, to the west.


Very little. Your point?


Your point man, not mine.

Mine was that sanctions worked.




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join