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.
Originally posted by Ray Davies
I don't see why this is so hard. If the Iranians want to use their reactors for peaceful purposes then they should allow the cameras and the inspection crews.
Originally posted by djohnsto77
He has no right to say anything to anyone, let alone the leader of the free world.
Originally posted by smallpeeps
Just because Germany was whipped into a nationalistic fervor seventy years ago doesn't mean they can't comment on nationalism today. In fact, it makes the German people more qualified to comment, since their entire country was decimated and occupied as a result of their own warlike progression. I'd include the Japanese in this class as well. Their warlike hysteria produced a very peaceful aftermath and a genuine change of worldview for their citizens.
Who better to know the effects of war than the formerly warlike nations? Who better to caution against it than those who have lost entire families to the war pigs?
Originally posted by smallpeeps
Just because Germany was whipped into a nationalistic fervor seventy years ago doesn't mean they can't comment on nationalism today. In fact, it makes the German people more qualified to comment, since their entire country was decimated and occupied as a result of their own warlike progression. I'd include the Japanese in this class as well. Their warlike hysteria produced a very peaceful aftermath and a genuine change of worldview for their citizens.
Who better to know the effects of war than the formerly warlike nations? Who better to caution against it than those who have lost entire families to the war pigs?
Germany's conservative opposition said on Sunday Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder's warnings against using military force to make Iran give up its nuclear program risked undermining international solidarity for electoral gain.
"The Chancellor is creating the fatal impression in Tehran that the world community is not united anymore," Wolfgang Schaeuble, senior foreign policy specialist of the opposition Christian Democrats told the daily Die Welt.
.........
"Schroeder is acting completely irresponsibly for electoral purposes. He's acting as though the problem were in Washington, rather than Tehran even though he knows that isn't so."
Schroeder's opposition to military action against Iraq in the run up to the 2003 war was seen as one of the main factors behind his unexpected victory in the 2002 election, when he accused the conservatives of toeing Washington's line.
And it's not as if the U.S. had attacked an innocent regime: Deposing criminals like Saddam Hussein should be the duty of all civilized nations. The reasons given turned out to be wrong? So what. The guy deserved what he got. I believe that the current state of terrorism in Iraq is a direct result of Anti-American propaganda in the European press. Why isn't this happening in Afghanistan? Simple: The world press is not depicting the U.S. as an evil occupying power in that country, so the terrorists don't feel as righteous when they blow up stuff there. But in Iraq: Why, It's your duty as a freedom-loving rebel to kill as many evil occupation forces as you can. The Europeans are secretly sympathizing with the terrorists there. It's disgusting. I wouldn't blame Bush for bombing the nuclear site in Iran. I think not caring about public opinion is a big strength of his, so it might actually happen.
as posted by smallpeeps
Anyway, Isn't it liberal versus conservative with you and me? Those conversations usually don't go anywhere. We see the war from different perspectives.
What I am saying here is that if the EU does not resolve the situation with Iran, then they will undoubtedly move this to the UN. Once at the UN, sanctions will probably be sought as a viable option. If the sanctions do nothing, which we are talking a few years plus [assuming here], what would be the next logical progressive step? My thinking is that the military action option will be on the suggested table [which I feel the EU and UN will shy from].
Again, I have said this a number of times, the US needs to take a backseat to the EU and UN on this for various reasons. Let the EU and UN take and make the first actions, whichever way this situation goes.
Originally posted by Seekerof
What I am saying here is that if the EU does not resolve the situation with Iran, then they will undoubtedly move this to the UN. Once at the UN, sanctions will probably be sought as a viable option. If the sanctions do nothing, which we are talking a few years plus [assuming here], what would be the next logical progressive step? My thinking is that the military action option will be on the suggested table [which I feel the EU and UN will shy from].
Originally posted by Odium
It's simple really.
Nation says "Bad Iran, you signed the NPT so you can't build them."
Iran says "O.K. put your cameras in and we'll go about making our power station."
E.U. + U.S. go; "Errr...no you're not allowed power either."
E.U. + U.S. take it to the U.N. U.N. sides with those Nations due to the fact 3 of them don't want Iran to have Nuclear Power stations or weapons.
Iran removes itself from the NPT and goes about building Nuclear Weapons and isn't breaking the law.