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.

 

Iranian President: "we will share nuclear tech with other Arab nations..."

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 19 2005 @ 04:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Most definately Russia will get into a war with the US over Iran?
You dont know Russia very well.

Russia will only definately do one thing for sure , and thats do whats in Russia's best interest. A direct war with the US is not Russia's best interest which has been proven time and time again during the cold war. We have proxy wars.

You could argue Russia would have a proxy war with the US over Iran thats debatable. But to think Russia's going to definately get into a war with a Super power over Iran


[edit on 19-9-2005 by ShadowXIX]


That's exactly what I mean.

Of course Russia isn't going to declare an all-out direct war with US over Iran - that's beyond rediculous.

What I AM saying, is that Russia will defend Iran to it's full capability. I don't think Russia or it's allies really like US right now, and I'm sure they would like to put US in it's place, and teach Bush, that she can't just go around declaring war on anyone she feels like declaring war on.

[edit on 19-9-2005 by Manincloak]




posted on Sep, 19 2005 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
American President: "we will NUKE All Other nations, that do not Agree with US..."


Do you have a link for this quote?

Or is it just some more BS?

Like everyone here is racist and American soldiers lure young children with candy and then murder them. You have a habit of making OUTRAGEOUS claims and then not backing them up.

You do know knowingly posting false information is a violation of the T&Cs?

[edit on 19-9-2005 by Amuk]



posted on Sep, 19 2005 @ 09:48 AM
link   
I think, here freedom of expression is coming in conflict with the "truth"..

I think an "iran"(threatened by a superior power on contestable grounds) was just pulled by the mod above me on the guy above him..
Interesting to see how he responds now..



posted on Sep, 19 2005 @ 03:07 PM
link   
Freedom Versus “Truth”


Originally posted by Daedalus3
I think, here freedom of expression is coming in conflict with the "truth"..

Definitely an ironic observation.


Without wanting to put words in Amuk's mouth, I think his point is that we should be careful about how far we go with our sarcasm, because the very first item on the T&C list is a requirement that no member knowingly post false information to ATS.

That's not a typo nor an accident, but a very important thing for members to keep in mind. Without that, a conspiracy site like ours will be doomed to become a cesspool of disinformation and nonsense.

It can take some getting used to, but once adopted, it becomes a way of life, and a tool for uncovering truth in a world full of lies.

Bush League

In this case, I think Souljah is being cynical, of course, but here's a thing I would like my fellow members to consider:

Iranian President: "we will NUKE All Other nations, that do not Agree with US..."

What if I said this? What if a bunch of my fellow Americans started repeating this, and putting this in our signature blocks?

Criticism of Bush and the U.S. are such staples of ATS culture at this point that I think many of my fellow members are somewhat oblivious to it.

But I'm not.

Disinformation about Iran also abounds on this site, and -- I suspect -- even forms the foundation for this thread. I urge my fellow members to avoid falling into the traps set for us by information warriors who seek to control our opinions.

Words have real power, and here in the Age of the Internet, words can start wars and get people killed. They can also prevent wars and expose the truth.

Will you choose the Light Side of Truth, or the Dark Side of Deception?

In keeping with the Star Wars theme I enjoy seeing used around ATS now and then...

“Beware the power of the Dark Side.” “Once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny.”

My advice to fellow member Souljah (of whom I'm a fan, by the way, though we don't agree on many things) is this:



“Be mindful of your feelings. They betray you.”


The truth is out there, but it is available to us only if we seek it.

Play nice, be honest, have fun and the rest comes naturally.

At least, that's my opinion.

Yours may vary, of course.



posted on Sep, 19 2005 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amuk

Originally posted by Souljah
American President: "we will NUKE All Other nations, that do not Agree with US..."


Do you have a link for this quote?

Or is it just some more BS?

Like everyone here is racist and American soldiers lure young children with candy and then murder them. You have a habit of making OUTRAGEOUS claims and then not backing them up.

You do know knowingly posting false information is a violation of the T&Cs?

[edit on 19-9-2005 by Amuk]


How many more lies does he have to say before you ban him?



posted on Sep, 19 2005 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Majic
In this case, I think Souljah is being cynical, of course, but here's a thing I would like my fellow members to consider:

Criticism of Bush and the U.S. are such staples of ATS culture at this point that I think many of my fellow members are somewhat oblivious to it.

Thanks for seeing that - I guess you were the Only One...



My advice to fellow member Souljah (of whom I'm a fan, by the way, though we don't agree on many things) is this:

“Be mindful of your feelings. They betray you.”


The truth is out there, but it is available to us only if we seek it.

Play nice, be honest, have fun and the rest comes naturally.

At least, that's my opinion.

Yours may vary, of course.

Thank You for Your Advice, O Wise Majic One.


Once again - You are Right.

I belive that the Truth can not be Hidden for Long too, as an old Chinese Proverb Goes:

"You Can't Hide the Sun, the Moon and the Truth."

Thanks for Everything.



[edit on 19/9/05 by Souljah]



posted on Sep, 19 2005 @ 04:09 PM
link   
So I guess you would have no problem with the title of this thread being.....

Iranian President: "we will NUKE All Other nations, that do not Agree with US..."

I would.

How can you claim to represent the truth and post crap like that?

Isnt there enough problems without people posting stuff they KNOW is BS?



[edit on 19-9-2005 by Amuk]



posted on Sep, 19 2005 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Manincloak


That's exactly what I mean.

Of course Russia isn't going to declare an all-out direct war with US over Iran - that's beyond rediculous.

What I AM saying, is that Russia will defend Iran to it's full capability. I don't think Russia or it's allies really like US right now, and I'm sure they would like to put US in it's place, and teach Bush, that she can't just go around declaring war on anyone she feels like declaring war on.

[edit on 19-9-2005 by Manincloak]


I thought you were suggesting Russia going to war with the US over Iran. My mistake if you didnt mean that. A proxy war cold be very plausible it this type of situation. Im sure Russia atleast would be more then happy to sell Iran as many arms as they could buy in this type of event.

I actually dont think the US even has to go to war to reach its objectives with Iran's nuclear ablities. It could be handled much in the way Israel delt with a similar situation with Iraq. A series of cruise missile strikes could cripple Irans Nuclear facilities without the need for boot one to hit the ground.

There is really not much chance of their defenses stopping such a strike either.



posted on Sep, 19 2005 @ 05:51 PM
link   
OK Then, Here it goes...



The 69-page draft document dated March 15, 2005, "last updated 10 years ago," is being "updated to reflect the doctrine of pre-emption" declared by President George W. Bush in 2002. The Doctrine "makes clear that 'the decision to employ nuclear weapons at any level requires explicit orders from the president.

Source:
www.sourcewatch.org...

So, if I understand this Correctly, the newly updated Doctrine for JNO is basicly saying, that the President of the US can authorize the Attack upon any nation of this Planet, if he finds it to be somehow of a Threat.

Furthermore...



In a significant shift after half a century of nuclear deterrence based on the threat of massive retaliation, the revised doctrine would allow pre-emptive strikes against states or terror groups, and to destroy chemical and biological weapons stockpiles.

Referring repeatedly to “non-state actors” — parlance for terrorists — the doctrine is designed to arm the White House and US forces with a new range of threats and sanctions to counter the situation of threatened nuclear attack by al-Qaeda or one of its affiliates.

The document’s key phrase appears in a list of pre-emptive nuclear strike scenarios, the first of which is against an enemy using “or intending to use WMD”.

Source:
Times Online

Meaning what exactly?

Let's say that the Bush Administration updated this Doctrine before the actual Invasion of Iraq. And if I remember correctly the Bush Administration stated SEVERAL times that Saddam had Weapons of Mass Destruction in his possession and that was one of the Cornerstones for the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq. So, by the Rights that the newly updated Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations gives to the US Air Forces, the President could give the order to use Nuclear Weapons on Targets in Iraq simply because they are "supposed" to have WMD's. Did they have them? How many WMD's were found? What was the Reason for the invasion of Iraq? Will we ever know?

So what's NEW about this updated Doctrine?

"To maintain their deterrent effect, U.S. nuclear forces must maintain a strong and visible state of readines, permitting a swift response to any no-notice nuclear attack against the United States, its forces, or allies."

Lowering the Bar for Nuclear Use?



The new doctrine ignores this distinction and instead lowers the crisis intensity level needed to potentially trigger use of U.S. nuclear weapons by replacing “war” with “conflict.” The change may seem trivial, but its implication is important and deliberate. The change was proposed by STRATCOM, which explained that “[r]eplacing the word ‘war’ with ‘conflict involving the use of’ emphasizes the nature of most conflicts resulting in use of a nuclear weapon. Nuclear war implies the mutual exchange of nuclear weapons between warring parties—not fully representative of the facts.”

For example, the new nuclear doctrine states that an adversary MIGHT detonate a nuclear weapon high in the atmosphere to damage U.S. military electronic equipment with a high-altitude electromagnetic pulse. Whatever the adversary use might be, the new nuclear doctrine makes it clear that the United States will not necessarily wait for the attack but pre-empt with nuclear weapons if necessary.

Source and a Very Nice Read for all those that are Interested in this Doctrine:
Arms Control Association

And then again the Adversary MIGHT not have a nuclear weapon (did Saddam have WMD's?) - still this Adversary will be wiped off the face of the planet with Nuclear Weapons.



The new doctrine appears to be precipitated by anticipation among military planners that deterrence will fail and U.S. nuclear weapons will be used in a conflict sooner or later.

For the nuclear planners, it seems so simple: deterrence must be credible, and the way to make it more credible is to increase the capabilities and number of strike options against any conceivable scenario. Ironically, a decade and a half after we should have escaped this nuclear deterrence logic of the Cold War, the planners cling to these old business practices. Instead of drastically reducing the role of nuclear weapons, as the Bush administration told the public it would do, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and terrorism seem to have spooked the administration into continuing and deepening a commitment to some of the most troubling aspects of the nuclear war-fighting mentality that symbolized the Cold War.

Source:
ACA

Basicly this newly written Doctrine was written with one Purpose Only:

To Lower the Bar for Nuclear Use from War to Conflict - clearly a Message to Iran and North Korea, both States involved in a Nuclear Weapon Research.

Bush Administration has basicly Done pretty much everything, but say it:

"We will NUKE All Other nations, that..."

Recent News regarding this Topic:



WASHINGTON, Sept. 19 (UPI) -- A rewrite of policy that would allow U.S. military commanders to call for nuclear strikes is causing the Pentagon headaches, The Washington Post reports.

The Pentagon may be having second thoughts about proposed revisions to its nuclear weapons doctrine that would allow commanders to seek presidential approval for using atomic arms against nations or terrorists who intend to use chemical, biological or nuclear weapons against the United States, its troops or allies.

Rep. David L. Hobson (R-Ohio), who called the draft "disturbing" and "representing old, Cold War thinking," said Defense Department officials told him last week that negotiations and discussions on the draft were still underway.

Hobson, who is chairman of the House Appropriations subcommittee that funds the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), said: "I'm hopeful more rational minds will look at this. It is a very provocative proposal."


On Wednesday, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov, in Berlin for a meeting of NATO defense ministers, told reporters he hopes Rumsfeld would inform him if the new doctrine were adopted.

"Lowering the threshold for use of atomic weapons is in itself dangerous," Ivanov said. "Such plans do not limit, but in fact promote, efforts by others to develop" nuclear weapons, he said, according to Reuters.

Source:
Washington Post


For More Information Read the Full Doctrine:
JP 3-12: Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations - Final Coordination

[edit on 19/9/05 by Souljah]



posted on Sep, 19 2005 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
Bush Administration has basicly Done pretty much everything, but say it:

"We will NUKE All Other nations, that..."


So if he HASN'T said this, which you admit, then the post is incorrect, right?

I still don't see how you get.... "We will nuke every country that disagrees with us"

From

"We reserve the right to attack first if we think we are going to be attacked"


But lets not let facts stand in the way of our prejudices and propaganda, right? If we dont like what was said, just make it up.

I would not call you on this type of stuff so often but I hate to see an Intelligent and educated person totally destroy any point he is trying to make by resorting to lies and propaganda.

You are better than that



posted on Sep, 19 2005 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amuk
So if he HASN'T said this, which you admit, then the post is incorrect, right?

I still don't see how you get.... "We will nuke every country that disagrees with us"

From

"We reserve the right to attack first if we think we are going to be attacked"

But lets not let facts stand in the way of our prejudices and propaganda, right? If we dont like what was said, just make it up.

I would not call you on this type of stuff so often but I hate to see an Intelligent and educated person totally destroy any point he is trying to make by resorting to lies and propaganda.

You are better than that

Yes he did NOT say that - but still it's and I quote:

- the draft "disturbing"

- "representing old, Cold War thinking"

- It is a very provocative proposal."

- "Such plans do not limit, but in fact promote, efforts by others to develop nuclear weapons"


That is far from the "We reserve the right to attack first if we THINK we are going to be attacked".

Well actually the word THINK is on emphasied here.

What if "You" were Wrong?

Then "You" might end up wiping out the wrong country with Nukes.

Again something pops to my Head, what the Russian minister said:

These kind of Doctrines are doing just one thing - and that's not Preventing the Thermonuclear Exchange to take place, but infact PROMOTING it!

Which is what I Find Scary and Utterly Idiotic!



posted on Sep, 19 2005 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
[Yes he did NOT say that - but still it's and I quote:

- the draft "disturbing"

- "representing old, Cold War thinking"

- It is a very provocative proposal."

- "Such plans do not limit, but in fact promote, efforts by others to develop nuclear weapons"


Then wouldn't it have represented your argument better to have said the above rather than post something that wasn't true?

You might have some points on the issues you raised up but most people will only read"Bush is gonna kill everyone" and not bother with the rest. Making posts like that only hurt you, most everyone else ignores them.



That is far from the "We reserve the right to attack first if we THINK we are going to be attacked".



Again, wrong that is EXACTLY what it says. Show me where it says we will nuke anyone that disagrees with us?




What if "You" were Wrong?

Then "You" might end up wiping out the wrong country with Nukes.



It would be a tragedy. But would it be less of a tragedy if we waited for a few million of our citizens to be killed before we acted? I personally don't worry to much about Iran or North Korea getting Nukes BECAUSE we have so many. Even if the nut cases running a country ordered it I doubt if the Military would carry it out. It would be instant suicide for them and millions of their citizens.




Again something pops to my Head, what the Russian minister said:

These kind of Doctrines are doing just one thing - and that's not Preventing the Thermonuclear Exchange to take place, but infact PROMOTING it!

Which is what I Find Scary and Utterly Idiotic!


This is almost funny coming from the Russians.

Some one correct me if I am wrong but hasnt it ALWAYS been within a Russian Field Commanders power to use Nukes? I am almost positive it was dujring the cold war.



posted on Sep, 19 2005 @ 06:41 PM
link   
Not that two wrongs make a right, but who is Russia's defense minister to say anything about the U.S. pre-emptive doctrine, when they maintain pretty much the same position?



August 10th 2005

Russian President Vladimir Putin has authorized the nation's Interior Ministry, which has its own armed force, to carry out preemptive strikes against "terrorists," whether inside or outside of Russian territory. No limit was set on the degree of force to be used, and Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov had earlier declared that the war on terror allows the use of all forms of weaponry.

"If it [the war on terror] is a war, then it is a war, and "any means could be used," declared Ivanov.

There may be, however, more to Moscow's preemptive strike declaration than concern over terrorists.

The post-Soviet republic of Georgia, which shares part of Russia's extensive southern border, is particularly alarmed, and has already protested Ivanov's preemptive strike declaration, calling it an "irresponsible statement."

It is unclear how far Russia will go with its preemptive strike declaration, and who will be targeted. What is certain, however, is that the Moscow elite have given the world warning that they are ready to strike at any time, with any weapon at their command.

In reality, the nations which have the most to fear from Russian nuclear intimidation are those which are Moscow's close neighbors and have attempted to become independent of the will of the Moscow elite.

www.inatoday.com...



posted on Sep, 19 2005 @ 07:40 PM
link   
No Such Thing As Second Place


Originally posted by 27jd
Not that two wrongs make a right, but who is Russia's defense minister to say anything about the U.S. pre-emptive doctrine, when they maintain pretty much the same position?

The assumption that a "preemptive doctrine" is wrong is just that: an assumption.

When dealing with weapons of mass destruction, he who hesitates isn't just lost, but dead.

If a murderer points a gun at you, does it make sense to wait until he pulls the trigger before shooting him? It's rather hard to return fire when you're dead, and murderers know that.

This is the same logical problem which faced the U.S. and Soviet Union during the Cold War, and now this problem is becoming a global nightmare as more nations acquire the ability to obliterate their neighbors in a matter of minutes, instead of years.

Now add the element of radical terrorists with these weapons, and the survival of humanity is in jeopardy.

This is NOT the fault of the U.S. We're in the same boat everyone else is. Our possession of nuclear weapons does NOT protect us from terrorism and regimes bent on genocide.

In an environment where the hard reality is what it is today, the only sensible doctrine is one of preemption, and those arguing otherwise do so either in ignorance of this fact or with malicious intent to deceive.

Either way, such opinions will win neither my agreement nor my support at the ballot box.



posted on Sep, 19 2005 @ 08:34 PM
link   
I remember watching a show on the History channel about WMD’s, and one scientists said, “Can you image what the world will look like, when anybody can kill everybody?” In my opinion it sums up the future situation we may be in, if nothing is done about Nuclear Proliferation.



posted on Sep, 19 2005 @ 09:00 PM
link   
Must every post be titled? J/K



Originally posted by Majic
The assumption that a "preemptive doctrine" is wrong is just that: an assumption.


Something can be logical and still be wrong. I don't think it's an assumption that the fact any one nation, or group of nations for that matter, can destroy the earth as we know it is wrong. Unless you feel that nuclear war is a good thing, which I think you've stated that you don't. It's wrong that anybody has that ability in the first place, but now that they do, it's logical to make sure we're not hit first, like you said.

My point was, Russia is in no position to call our stance "disturbing", when their position is the same.

[edit on 19-9-2005 by 27jd]



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 02:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIXI thought you were suggesting Russia going to war with the US over Iran. My mistake if you didnt mean that.


No problems.


Originally posted by ShadowXIXA proxy war cold be very plausible it this type of situation. Im sure Russia atleast would be more then happy to sell Iran as many arms as they could buy in this type of event.


Saying it's very plausible is very true, and I agree with you there. Like I already said, Russia is really getting ticked off that US is attacking everyone, because they think the country may be envolved in terrorism or doing something which could threaten US.

Well maybe the US should wake up already and declare war on itself!!!!

Anywho, I'm sure Russia along with their Chinese friends would love to show the world that America can't do what it wants.

I think this is the main reason they will do it, of course giving out other (very legitimate) reasons such as Russia's investment in Iran, their allience, ect.

As for selling them arms, I believe they are already supplying Iran with anti surface ship weapons.

I wonder if Iran could take out a US aircraft carrier with them? If they did, I bet the Pentagon will be REALLY pissed off, while Iranians and Russians will be pissing themselves laughing


(pardon the language
).


Originally posted by ShadowXIXI actually dont think the US even has to go to war to reach its objectives with Iran's nuclear ablities. It could be handled much in the way Israel delt with a similar situation with Iraq. A series of cruise missile strikes could cripple Irans Nuclear facilities without the need for boot one to hit the ground.

There is really not much chance of their defenses stopping such a strike either.


Not sure about Cruise missiles, I mean won't striking Iran's nuclear reactor cause big radiation pollution problems??? Like Chernobyl?

As for stopping US forces.....well they would quite obviously bomb the living daylights out of Iran for a couple of days, the only question is, does Iran have the tech to shoot these Stealth Bombers down?

Does Russia? Is it willing to share?

Also, I was looking up, and there's a Russian AF base with a couple of hundred mig 29s not too far from Iran, at the stretch of Russia going into the middle east.

Do you think Russia would deploy their planes to shoot down US bombers?



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 04:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Majic
If a murderer points a gun at you, does it make sense to wait until he pulls the trigger before shooting him? It's rather hard to return fire when you're dead, and murderers know that.


When we had a mandatory military service in Slovenia and you didn't want to serve (altho fit for duty) you could invoke your right which was called Objection of Conscience. People used it quite often, so you have to go in front of revision board that asked you some pretty tricky question. The purpose of questioning was to establish if you reallly mean that or you're just faking it.

The question one of my friends was asked:
I you were in an armed standoff with another person with intent to kill you, what would you do?

And the answer was:
I would probably end up dead.



posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 12:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Murcielago
- To me it sounds like I did answer your question.

and Fox is a reliable news source.

Edit: BTW are you from & do you currently live in Iran?

[edit on 17-9-2005 by Murcielago]


OMG...

Fox is a reliable news source?

I almost died laughing after I read that.


Originally posted by Murcielago
The US would not have a problem with some country developing nukes...as long as there a stable country...and preferibly not communist. If a country like Japan decided they wanted nukes, the US would not be in their way to stop them. Iran is an unstable country, so the US fears not only what they themselves would do.....but that they may sell nukes to the highest bidder.


Yeah...and I guess they dont have a problem with Pakistan developing nukes seeing as how they're a military regime that took power in a coupe not long ago. Pakistan is a textbook "rogue state" and yet for some reason we're still allied with them.

The only reason we're allied with Pakistan is because Afghanistan (which is now controlled by a US puppet government) is a landlocked country and we needed a way to get a pipeline in there so that we could start importing their oil and natural gas reserves.

Also, think about this for a second. The Pakistani ISI staged the parliament suicide bombings in India, the ISI trains terrorists and infiltrates them into Kashmir, the ISI had ties to the 9/11 hijackers...and guess who is largely responsible for the amount of power and influence the ISI has in Pakistan? The CIA.


Originally posted by skippytjc
See you at boot camp...

[edit on 15-9-2005 by skippytjc]


All you Americans that are overzealous about going to war, I have one question for you:

Why aren't you already in the army?

If you feel so strongly about the Afghanistan war or the Iraq war or the possibility of the Iran war then why dont you go enlist? Until you do you need to stop talking sh*t because you're just proving your own cowardice and immaturity.

Every nation should have a law where any members of their congress/parliament/decision making governmental body who votes in favor of a motion to go to war will mandatorily have their military age sons serve in the front lines.

Maybe then we'd have world peace?

[edit on 21-9-2005 by ShakyaHeir]

[edit on 21-9-2005 by Thomas Crowne]



posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 04:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Majic
I myself am from America and still very suspicious of U.S. foreign policy.

Suspicion is not necessarily a bad thing.


The fact that you have to point that out sometimes is though.




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join