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 war being plotted

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:
Sep

posted on Sep, 19 2005 @ 02:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by snafu7700
until the pakistani president got some backbone and helped us remove the taliban (with considerable threat to his own safety and stability to his own country...both of which he has overcome)


The Pakistani president helped you because he didn’t want to be under pressure from the US government. But that is a completely different point from the one I am making. You said the Iranian nation, as a whole is more radical than Pakistan. I am saying that the Pakistani nation did, and a huge portion of the population still does support the Taliban and al-Qaede and have the most radical Islamic school.


elements of al-quede are in almost every country in the world at present.


Yes, but Pakistan has a greater amount of al-Qaede members within its boarders than most other countries with the possible exception of Afghanistan.


except maybe for that little ten year war against iraq....both sides used chemical weapons


Well actually, Iraq was the country that used it first and Iran only retaliated.


dont remember 1979 too well i guess...


What happened in 1979? A revolution took place and Iraq invaded Iran in 1980.


maybe it has something to do with all the "death to america and the zionist pig" speeches that get preached from the mullahs on a daily basis.


Are you familiar with the word “rhetoric”? If you are not you must be frightened indeed. I mean a few months ago China threatened to use nuclear weapons against the US in it ambition to conquer Taiwan, but do you really think they are going to go for a first strike just for the hell of it? Russia threatened you for 40 years. Did they attack you? India and Pakistan threatened to bomb each other back to the Stone Age, but once they got the nukes, they both lowered the rhetorics.




posted on Sep, 19 2005 @ 03:49 AM
link   
To be fair, the article touches only on diplomatic strategy, nor military strategy. (I still believe it could come to that in time, however).



posted on Sep, 19 2005 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Are you familiar with the word “rhetoric”?


im guessing this would be the same "rhetoric" mullahs in saudi arabia used that convinced 14 of 19 hijackers to martyr themselves.

iran, unlike the other countries you have mentioned (turkey and pakistan) is run by the mullah hardliners, and led by an individual reported to be (and i will admit not proven yet) one of the leaders of the students who held american embassy hostages in 1979. all extremists to the core. i realize at this point that i will never be able to convince you otherwise, but remember this conversation when iran has its nukes.

and by the way, i never said iran attacked iraq first. you said that they had never used WMD...i was merely pointing out that they had.


Sep

posted on Sep, 19 2005 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by snafu7700
iran, unlike the other countries you have mentioned (turkey and pakistan) is run by the mullah hardliners, and led by an individual reported to be (and i will admit not proven yet) one of the leaders of the students who held american embassy hostages in 1979.


Well, these "Mullah harldiners" have run the country for over 26 years and had WMDs for around 20 years and have not used them in a first strike, ever. And all the right wingers claim Iran is run by Khamenei and that Iran's president is just a front. I am suprised that you disagree.


Originally posted by snafu7700and by the way, i never said iran attacked iraq first. you said that they had never used WMD...i was merely pointing out that they had.


My mistake, I meant that Iran has never used WMDs I mean they have never used it as a first strike weapon.



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 03:50 PM
link   
One thing to keep in mind..................any network or cable news station are owned by large (and in most cases) multinational parent corporations.......as a result you will never ever get the big picture of the whole truth with them..........

......commercial news is driven also by commercial advertising..........

So if a particular news station has negative news about a major advertiser with them.........you won't see it either............

thank goodness for alternative news like you can find on the Internet.........sure there is a lot of junk but you can learn to seperate the junk from reliable sources.............

Man if the government ever starts restricting the Internet then look out.......fascism will be right around the corner.........

Anway...........watch Iran.........if they drop the dollar for the Euro as the trading standard for oil then we are likely to make a move on them...........(that's the real reason why we went into Iraq)........

Any move to take the dollar out of the middle east oil trade will cause a huge sell off my other nations and a collaspes of our economy that would make 1929 look like a picnic.........



posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 06:29 AM
link   
What seems to be forgotten in this argument is that Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons in a post 9/11 world. One cannot compare its nuclear ambitions to the previous development of those weapons by Pakistan, pre-9/11. For people and governments in the west, 9/11 was a defining moment, and thus world politics must be considered in that context.

For example: When Pakistan began their nuclear program in 1975, the world was a very different place. At that time, the thought of an Islamic country using a nuclear weapon by terrorist proxy was unthinkable. Nuclear weapons were still huge ungainly things that took either intercontinental ballistic missiles or bombers to deliver accurately. Furthermore, Pakistan was not actively threatening the United States or western cities. Not only that, but they were building their program in response to that of their main adversary, India, who detonated their own Nuclear weapon in 1974. Even so, the United States enforced sanctions against Pakistan, cutting off economic and military aid. On a side note, it must be remembered as well, that Pakistan theoretically became a regional U.S. ally when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in late 1979 early 1980.

Now say what you will about why the U.S. invaded Iraq, (oil, the NWO, etc..) but consider this; If you were the president of a country whose sworn enemy was actively pursuing weapons that could destroy a city and kill millions of your citizens in the blink of an eye, wouldn't you be remiss, if you didn't at least contemplate using force to deny them that weapon?

I would argue that if a country whose theocratic government repeatedly calls for your complete destruction, tells it's people through religious mouth pieces that you are the Great Satan, and also actively uses terrorist organizations to conduct strikes against it's opponents develops nuclear weapons, then you must seriously consider the possibility that they would use them. And therefore you must also seriously consider ANY military option that would prevent them from acquiring those weapons.



new topics

top topics
 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join