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 continue hardline stance!

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 09:32 AM
link   
www.iranmania.com...

After reading this article, how serious is Iran in continuing this hardline stance against the international community?

Have they not realised that the West, well, the US is dead serious about striking Iran if they continue with the enrichment of uranium!?




posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 09:58 AM
link   
Assuming that they are developing their nuclear facilities for the pruposes of constructing nuclear weapons, perhaps they think that if they can manufacture at least one viable bomb before the West becomes militarily involved, that they can subsequently delay such an action indefinitely and ultimately be recognised as a legitimate nuclear power.

I am sure that Iran has been paying extremely close attention to the situation in North Korea. North Korea poses a risk that is at least comparable to that posed by Iran. A detailed discussion of North Korea's military capability is a topic for another thread. Suffice it to say that, whilst both countries are considered part of the Axis of Evil, one of these countries is involved in talks with the United States to negotiate a deal whereby its nuclear ambitions would be forsaken in exchange for aid. The other nation is Iran. Perhaps Iran's leaders are attempting to duplicate North Korea's actions and believe that developing nuclear weapons will enable them to effectively bargain with the United States and in the process receive prestige, as well as political, economic and technological benefits.

If this were the case, Iran would essentially be in a race against the clock, to construct a viable nuclear weapon before any military action was launched, either by the United States or, more probably, by Israel. If this theory were correct, we would expect to see a series of delaying actions on Iran's part, as they stalled for time to construct a viable weapon. I suppose we shall have to wait and see what happens.



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 10:06 AM
link   
But i happen to personally think, that the US or Israel, will strike Iran whatever happens,(not saying this is right, only my opinion).

I believe it all to be part of the master plan, with Iran being an essential part of this, just like Iraq!



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 11:54 AM
link   
Iran is indeed in a race against the clock to develop their one bargaining chip, their strategy of on and off talks with the Europeans their strategy of stalling the UN is working beautifully. However how long will the US continue to remain patient with Iran?



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 12:38 PM
link   
Considering the devastation inflicted upon the US by hurricane Katrina, the United States is no position to extend its military adventurism to additional countries, at least for the immediate future.

This is not to say that the US lacks the material resources (troops, weapons, chicken hawks, etc.) to attempt such folly; merely a recognition of the hard fact that, if the political leaders of the country were to propose such action, at this time of national domestic crisis, there would be a public out-cry for immediate recall/impeachment, if not drawing and quartering!

So, Due to Technical Diffulties, the schedulled "Invasion of Iran" will not be seen at this time.

Short of having actually detonated a nuclear device, there is little Iran has to fear as a trigger/excuse for invasion from the USA. As to invasion from the European Union (perhaps as the U.S.'s proxy?), this is also highly unlikely, IMO. The EU has too much to lose by incurring the certain wraith of the Arabic world. The EU recognizes its tenuous position in this aspect of glabal politics; uneasily balanced on the sharp knife's edge between America's "War on Terror" and the Islamic extremist/terrorists who my or may not already live amoung them and whose relatives control the petroleum lifeline to Europe's heart.

The EU would be as foolish, if not more foolish than the US, to attack Iran, again, without obvious evidence of clear and present danger; ie. an admission of posession, or the actual detonation of, a nuclear device.

Israel, on the other hand, is the wild card in the geo-political deck.

If Israel were to feel threatened by nuclear developments in Iran, she may well risk the condemnation of the rest of the world's nations. She may even feel that the elimination of such a potenial threat as a possibly nuclear-armed Iran, existing sometime in the near or distant future, would justify the risk of conventional war with some, or all, of her Arabic neighbors.

A possibly suicidal conclusion.



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 08:12 AM
link   
I thinks now the Iranians have seen the relief effort joke in New Orleans, they are even determined to face up.



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 09:06 AM
link   
Russia, India, Germany and China have invested hundreds of billions of dollars in the Iranian oil industry, China actually invested $200 billion, I doubt they will take it lightly if the US decides to invade and steal the oil. For the US it would be political, economical etc. suicide, the spark that could possibly ignite the next World War.

So I don't think the US is going to attack Iran, or then they're really insane.



[edit on 5/9/2005 by SwearBear]



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 09:11 AM
link   
There is of course the small technicality that enriching uranium (as a signed up and observed member of ithe IAEA) for a civillian power program is not illegal under any international law.

There is no evidence whatsoever that Iran has an actual nuclear weapons program.

It seems no-one is going to let that stop them though.



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 10:21 AM
link   
I have serious reservations over Iran's claims that their development of nuclear technology is purely for the purpose of generating electricity. I personally think that they are almost certainly developing the capability to manufacture nuclear weapons. Why do I think this? Because that is precisely what I would do in their position.

If my nation had been named as one of the three Axis of Evil members and if I had just watched another one of those members fall to the Coalition, I would be giving serious thoughts as to my own security in the time to come. Even for a rational leader in such a situation, it would be difficult to view America and her allies with anything less than guarded apprehension. Throw into the mix the unpredictable element posed by Israel, who have taken it upon themselves to conduct pre-emptive strikes on nuclear facilities in the past and I would certainly be feeling somewhat nervous.

If I were Iran, I would play nice in all my dealings with Europe, Russia, India and China. I would invite IAEA representatives, as well as United States representatives, to tour my nuclear facilities and I would give them unrestricted access and allow them to monitor my facilities. Then I would manufacture an attack on a target I knew would respond - probably Israel. When Israel counter-attacked, I would appear outraged and demand international intervention. I would release falsified evidence that the attack was actually the result of a group that was in no way aligned with myself. This would attract the sympathy of those nations I had been developing respectable relationships with. When everything had died down, I would announce that I was manufacturing nuclear weapons to defend myself against a proven enemy who attacked me with unprovoked aggression. Then I would dare America to stop me.

But then, that's just me.



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 10:50 AM
link   
Iran's desire for nuclear power goes right back to the 1960's and 1970's; it has nothing to do with Bush.

It was the US gov back then that promoted this idea as they wanted to sell the Shah a stack of nuclear tech.


The foundations for Iran's nuclear program were laid in the 1960 under auspices of the U.S. within the framework of bilateral agreements between the two countries. In 1967 the Tehran Nuclear Research Center (TNRC) was built and run by the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI). The TNRC was equipped with a US supplied 5-megawatt nuclear research reactor. Iran signed and ratified the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1968. With the establishment of Iran's atomic agency and the NPT in place plans were drawn by Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi (Iran's monarch) to construct up to 23 nuclear power stations across the country together with USA by the year 2000.

By 1975, The U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, had signed National Security Decision Memorandum 292, titled "U.S.-Iran Nuclear Cooperation," which laid out the details of the sale of nuclear energy equipment to Iran projected to bring U.S. corporations more than $6 billion in revenue....

....President Gerald R. Ford even signed a directive in 1976 offering Tehran the chance to buy and operate a U.S.-built reprocessing facility for extracting plutonium from nuclear reactor fuel. The deal was for a complete "nuclear fuel cycle". The Ford strategy paper said the "introduction of nuclear power will both provide for the growing needs of Iran's economy and free remaining oil reserves for export or conversion to petrochemicals."[1]


en.wikipedia.org...'s_nuclear_program

- Simple suspicion, "reservations" or even outright paranoia are hardly sufficient grounds to be going to war (a war possibly involving chemical or biological weapons) in one of the world's most unstable regions.
Europe certainly will want nothing to do with such an obvious put up job.

As for Israel IMO it is the height of hypocrisy that their nuclear weapons (which are believed to actually exist) just get ignored in all this.

Iran hasn't attacked anyone, nor given any indication of doing so with the WMD's and missiles she already possesses.
This is about extending control of the region and it's oil, nothing more.

I believe it is mostly threat because even the nutters planning and running large parts of the current US administration understand that an utterly friendless USA is a really really stupid idea.

When those that share your basic values and ideals won't go along with your schemes it really is time to reconsider things.



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by veritas 7
Iran continue hardline stance!

...how serious is Iran in continuing this hardline stance against the international community?


LMFAO!!
I'm sorry, but that's the funniest thing I've read in a long time. Iran, after watching two sovereign nations on either side of it be conquered, raped and pillaged based on open lies, is now being threatened with invasion itself if it doesn't immediately relinquish nuclear weapons ambitions that it never had in the first place, and couldn't realize for more than a decade even if it did...and Iran is the one with the hardline stance?! "Against" the international community?!

But all jokes aside, I do agree. And I also feel that chickens should be criticized for their hardline stance against crocodiles everywhere.

external image


[edit on 2005-9-5 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
I also feel that chickens should be criticized for their hardline stance against crocodiles everywhere.


- Succinctly and very nicely put.



posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 03:13 PM
link   
So ok then, wecomeinpeace. What happens if Iran do manage to obtain nuclear weapons?

Any terrorist organisation linked to Iran, and the current funding, would have a greater oportunity to obtain this tech, and use it against the West.

And do not tell me that Iran would not do this, because you're wrong, the would!

If the groups then used them against the West, Iran could say, "it wasn't us", but must have been a terrorist group! Then who would you attack/blame if there is no country to target, but only a group you can't possibly locate easily. This scenario is the biggest threat, that will come from Iran having these weapons. For god's sake, wake up, and stop being so naive!!!

And yes we all that oil is a major reason, but it is not the entire pic!

We are fighting a chess game that is long and necessary, to remain no.1.
Or would you prefer, China, Russia, or any other worst country than any in the West, to be in charge.

It's all about picking sides, in reality, and i've chosen mine!!!



posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 03:57 PM
link   
Choices?

We have a basketcase leading the west who believes he was put in power by God:

*Willing to lie about WMD, freeing nations, and ordering preemptive strikes to do so....
*Willing to play legalities with his own election....
*Willing to put the lives of American citizens at risk for his own agenda.

In the ME we have a nation accepting the needs of their people to have the ceature comfort of cheap electricity which was recommended by this nation 20-30 years ago.

duh?

Even former presidents see something is wrong. Check this link:

www1.voanews.com...

Finally, wonder if anyone else has realized we have a president, the third George who is acting akin to King George III of England, against whom the Declaration of Independence was written??? (maybe too much information or a new thread)?


[edit on 6-9-2005 by garyo1954]

[edit on 6-9-2005 by garyo1954]



posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 04:11 PM
link   
Oh yeah, of course, Jimmy Carter, what a fantastic president?


Why don't you re-elect him, then maybe the US would be a much better place?

And by the way, i am not a Bush fan, before you say so!



posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 05:14 PM
link   
Veritas,

I apologize now if you think I was making a personal attack on your thoughts or idealisms. That was not my intent.

I do stand by my post. Just because we are the only superpower does not give us the right to dictate what other nations are allowed to do for their citizens, or for their own security.

I know if my house was surrounded by men wearing white hats throwing rocks through the windows and making threats about burning it down, I would want all the firepower I could get.

Again I apologize.



posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 05:30 PM
link   
Of course they are, we may like to think they are dumb, but they may not be.

The US is overextended and they know it. They also figure the rest of the "west" won't want to go at them w/o the US.

Now u want to see a different rxn-have the US pull out of Afganistan and Iraq. That would be a whole nother story.



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 07:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by veritas 7
So ok then, wecomeinpeace. What happens if Iran do manage to obtain nuclear weapons?

Any terrorist organisation linked to Iran, and the current funding, would have a greater oportunity to obtain this tech, and use it against the West.

And do not tell me that Iran would not do this, because you're wrong, the would!

If the groups then used them against the West, Iran could say, "it wasn't us", but must have been a terrorist group!


- The really funny thing about all of this 'arguement' is that Iran does have WMDs already.......and have had them for years.

Iran has have chemical and biological weapons for decades yet funnily enough they have not let anyone else have them, attacked the USA or loaded them into their long range missiles and fired them at Europe or Israel.

But then seeing as they have had this kind of WMD for so long and not attacked anyone it kind of makes claims that "they would!" a shade empty, wouldn't you say?
Best ignore those WMDs and make all sorts of claims about nuclear weapons, eh?



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 08:07 AM
link   
It's all a bit sad. They don't seem to have any idea how serious the U.S. can be. The power is not a wanted use but may become a necessary use.
The United States of America will do what they feel is in their interest to protect their Country.

China, Russia, North Korea and Iran will not and cannot leak nuclear materials around which could end up on or near U.S. soil.
America's just too strong to give that time to happen before being
"pre-emptive".

Don't know who will become the next U.S. President, but I'm pretty-sure this one will want to deal with it all before the next election simply due to his hate for aggression against America and only a limited time to be pro-active.

Yes President Bush is dangerous. He's dangerous against anyone(s) or countries that are a threat to his people.

Dallas



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 08:13 AM
link   
With all the cheap oil Iran possesses, it would be a horrific economic blunder to spend hundreds of millions on uranium enrichment. So, it follows that they must not be interested in electricity.

Just because they haven't used them in the past doesn't mean squat about their future actions.

India has nukes; but they are also a democracy, and a responsible member of the world community. Iran sees itself as the vanguard of a world revolution of fundamentalist Islam.

I was talking to a woman yesterday whose father was a commanding officer in the Iranian Navy. She said their submarine force is obviously working on a diesel-powered sub capable of carrying a nuke warhead on a missle platform. They don't need this tech for Israel . . . they could hit Israel from current land launchpads in Iran. They would only need subs attack another continent.

One of the things we were talking about was the way they, honest to God, use the same "buzzwords" used by nazi Germany in the thirties.

The ruling cleric's talk about Iran's "world-historic destiny"

They love to point out that "IRAN" is the root-word of the term "Aryan." (And is pronounced the same way in Iranian.) They talk about maintaining their Iranian identity in the face of a (satanic) world order that prevents them to ascending to their proper place as "a leader among the world's peoples."



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join