It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 08:15 AM

Originally posted by SwearBear
For the US it would be political, economical etc. suicide, the spark that could possibly ignite the next World War.

Yeah and that's what's scary. Look who we have in charge, Commander Cookoo Banana Pants.

posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 08:16 AM
Stay on Topic Please!!!

posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 08:26 AM
Ahh.. Sushmita Sen to rescue..

posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 05:51 PM

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft

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.

- Er, no it doesn't.

I suggest you look back at the original arguements the USA used - over 30yrs ago - to persuade Iran to acquire nuclear power.
Originally the Iranian nuclear power program was something the Americans persuaded the Iranians they needed (and should buy from the USA).

That was over 30yrs ago.
Imagine the depletion and vast increase in demand for Iranian oil in the period between.

That Iran should look beyond 'the time of the oil' should come as no surprise to anyone.
Anyone with a shred of sense would in their position.

The last thing any of these ME oil states wants is to sell everyone else their oil and yet at the end of it be left without a sustainable future energy program.

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

- You cannot make all sorts of lurid claims about 'what Iran is gonna do if they get......' when they already have the means to do much of what you fear.

They have not had nuclear weapons before, they don't have them now and the most authorititive US report says that even if they were working on them they are at least 10yrs off them.

What they have had (for over 2 decades) are chemical and biological weapons, and missiles to launch them in the ME and later as far as Europe and the far east.
They have shown absolutely no intensions of doing any such thing, despite the propaganda and claims of those with a political axe to grind over this and the supporting cast of the usual emigré doom-sayers.

Iran sees itself as the vanguard of a world revolution of fundamentalist Islam.

- That's one view (so long as you only take account of the most extreme voices coming out of and connected to Iran).
Others say no such thing and would point to a great improvement in international relations.

The fact is that thanks to the history between them the Iranians are hardly going to be America's best friends; that is a world away from making out (with any credibility) that they are a hairs breadth away from launching a nuclear attack on the US (or anyone else) given the chance.

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.

- Hearsay. Hardly proof of anything.
By the way, when you say her "father was a "commanding officer in the Iranian Navy" how recently was that, in the days of the Shah (in which case the story is well out of date)?

In any event you answer the point yourself, they don't need that tech to attack Israel or Europe (supposedly what everyone is meant to be jumping up and down about), they have had that capability (with chemical and biological weapons) for years.
.....and never once threatened its use.

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."

- This is - if true - just repeating the ravings of some of the Iranian nutter extreme.
I could post up similar rubbish from one of 'our' nutters if you like, what would that prove?

To paint the political situation in Iran today as some kind of homogeneous political extremism is simply wrong.

Those opposition groups supported by the young and more progressive elements have made much progress (but ironically thanks to the more aggressive recent US tone some of that progress has been undermined as Iranians feel under threat and 'rally round' the harder line).

Nevertheless the 'revolution' is over 26yrs ago, things have changed, pretending that they have not is no use to anyone in the long run.

new topics

top topics
<< 1   >>

log in