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.

 

POLITICS: Israeli Legislators to Washington: If You Don't Stop Iran, We Will

page: 4
1
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 2 2005 @ 05:54 PM
link   
Whats to stop israel from simply nuking iran rather then conventional bombings?




posted on Oct, 2 2005 @ 05:55 PM
link   
The United States and Israel are very close allies. Isreal has been very patient in the past with Washington.

It's not Washington trying to be a bully and tell Israel what to do. It's just that we're trying to exhaust any all alternatives to a full scale war in the region. A peaceful solution is just not there and never will be without Israel unleashing her full might on her enemies in the area. Then after that's over with, there shall be peace in the Middle East because the enemies of Israel will be destroyed.

Iran doesn't want Israel to attack her. Neither does she want the U.S. to attack her. She'll back down in the end as she always does.



posted on Oct, 2 2005 @ 09:54 PM
link   
I keep hearing about Israel's right to defend herself and Israel's right to bomb Iran. Well sure, Israel has a right to defend herself but that is a universal right and the Iranians are entitled to it aswell.

If they've had America breathing down their neck for 30+ years you'd think they'd be feeling a bit threatend with the most aggressive US President ever at the helm.

Some people here still assume that there is some kind of heirachy in international affairs where you and your friends (America and Israel) can tell other countries what to do, this simply is nonsense. America and Israel have about the same authourity to demand things of Iran as Mexico demanding America open its borders.

The only bullets America has to fire at Iran in this nuclear standoff is the NPT. But its not quite as cut and dried as the average Fox news viewer thinks. The nuclear powers are breaking the NPT because after 25 years they have not dismantled their nuclear weapons arsenals. Iran on the otherhand has not broken its requirements under the NPT. There has been no evidence that Iran has used its NPT-approved nuclear fuel programme for anything other than fuel. Until that changes there is simply nothing that can be demanded of Iran.

Even if Iran did want to exercise its right to defend itself as allowed under the NPT and withdraw from the treaty, it could. There is also not a damn thing any country could do about because article 10 of the treaty allows it. Walking away from a treaty is also something the Americans have done on a number of occassions so claiming there is something illegal about Iran withdrawing from the NPT leaves America in the very same boat.

With regards to FredT's post saying that the Israelis are only posturing, thats probably the most accurate statement here. They are probably trying to force the Iranians to pull a Sam L. Jackson, admit they are going after nukes and say "Yes the Israelis deserve to die, and I hope they burn in hell!"
They might even try to replicate the bombing of the Tammuz reactor even knowing it would be ineffectual, it would raise the chances of vitriol coming from the mullahs. All they need is an Iranian leader/mullah soundbyte about wanting to destroy Israel and they'll have their casus belli.



posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 12:26 AM
link   


Iran having "the bomb" is an absolutely nightmare inducing scenario for every human being on the planet, as it would result in nothing less than another nuclear arms race, and eventually, the death of billions of lives.


The North Korean regime, a .gov if anything even nuttier than the Iranians, already have the bomb. Yet there has not been another arms race, and somehow the human race continues to exist. Even with the bomb, the Iranians simply have no force projection capability.

And who are they going to get in an arms race with, Israel?
Israel seems to have a pretty good head start, having 200+ nuclear warheads in their arsenal already.

I don't buy the "Iran getting the bomb is the end of the world" fear mongering. Franky we've already been decieved by that kind of claptrap into one futile war in the region, that's enough for now IMHO.

Iran wants the bomb because the two countries it sees as it's most likely adversaries, the US and Israel, already have it. Iran also has another unfriendly nuclear power on it's doorstep, that being Pakistan.

Frankly, even though there has been no proof or even convincing evidence presented so far, I accept the idea that Iran probably does have a nuclear weapons program. Considering their strategic positon, they'd be fools not to.

It still doesn't strike me as likely that they're going to be flinging nukes around willy-nilly as soon as they get them. They may be fanatics, but they're not stupid. They alread have signiifigant chemical weapons capability, but they have yet to launch a single VX tipped Shahab at Tel Aviv.



posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 01:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
I don't buy the "Iran getting the bomb is the end of the world" fear mongering. Franky we've already been decieved by that kind of claptrap into one futile war in the region, that's enough for now IMHO.


And I honestly don't care what you buy.

We're not talking about a Sam's Club Card. We're talking about the most the singular most destructive weapon ever conceived by man, in the hands of the same Fundementalists who flew planes into our buildings.

Yes, Bush is awful. Yes, neo conservatives are truly evil. But, that also doesn't neccessarily mean the others guys are any better.

We're not marching for civil rights, we're talking about a weapon capable of killing millions placed in the hands of Men who still STONE people to death.
I mean, do you actually support Iran having a nuke?

Are you a mad man?

I live in reality. In the here and the now, and there should be certain blanket things we can all agree upon. Gravity. The world is round. And, the notion that we should keep the power of the atom out of the hands of apocalyptic religious nuts, so God can't tell them to kill the rest of us non believers - or smite down the wicked.

This isn't even a liberal/conservative thing. This is a sane and insane arguement. Either you're for the survival of the human race, or your not. And frankly, I'd rather not see the apocalypse played out in my life time.

Thank you.

It's a thread like this that make me actually empathize with the lunatic GOP.



posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 01:32 AM
link   
wow, it was Iranians now? gee this is confusing lol



On a serious note, let's just go back to basics ... if the US can have it, why can't Iran? because of their geographic location ? spare me.

Why is the US so quick to point it's finger at Iran and ASSume it is going to use the nuclear power for weapons to attack them when she has clearly stated it is for peaceful use. Is our word really no good anymore ?

If the world really is going to continue this "guessing game" and continue to murder each other I stand by my decision to not bear children because this is truly sad *sigh*



[edit on 3-10-2005 by ImJaded]



posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 01:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImJaded
wow, it was Iranians now? gee this is confusing lol



On a serious note, let's just go back to basics ... if the US can have it, why can't Iran? because of their geographic location ? spare me.

Why is the US so quick to point it's finger at Iran and ASSume it is going to use the nuclear power for weapons to attack them when she has clearly stated it is for peaceful use. Is our word really no good anymore ?

If the world really is going to continue this "guessing game" and continue to murder each other I stand by my decision to not bear children because this is truly sad *sigh*



[edit on 3-10-2005 by ImJaded]


Plain and simple. Iran is not exactly a peaceful nation were everyone has a say in the day to day runnings of it. They can say its for peaceful means but we are not gonna dick around with it and give them an oppurtunity to develop it for other means. For what reason are they even gonna need nuclear energy when they are sitting on this vast oil reserve?

[edit on 3-10-2005 by Whompa1]



posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 01:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by brimstone735
We're talking about the most the singular most destructive weapon ever conceived by man, in the hands of the same Fundementalists who flew planes into our buildings.

Wait, are you saying that the Iranian government has connections to Al-CIAduh, or are you talking about general "fundamentalist" hijackers, 7 out of the 19 of which are still alive today.

Hijack 'suspects' alive and well - BBC News


Yes, Bush is awful. Yes, neo conservatives are truly evil. But, that also doesn't neccessarily mean the others guys are any better.

No, you got it wrong. Bush is stupid, and neo-cons are evil.


...we should keep the power of the atom out of the hands of apocalyptic religious nuts...

I'm glad you agree that Bush should be impeached.


This isn't even a liberal/conservative thing. This is a sane and insane arguement. Either you're for the survival of the human race, or your not. And frankly, I'd rather not see the apocalypse played out in my life time.

See above.


It's a thread like this that make me actually empathize with the lunatic GOP.

Your honor, the prosecution rests.



posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 02:16 AM
link   
Whompa1, how many nations are;
A) Peaceful and;
B) The people have a say in the day to day running...

Oh wait...Israel sure ain't. [Democracy doesn't give you day to day voting or even the right to vote on moral issues/laws in Israel].

So looks like Switzerland is the only nation...



posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 02:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
Your honor, the prosecution rests.


Yeah, you're gonna have to do better than that. I'm still unaware of what point you were actually trying to make, other than the self congratulatory pat on the back for overstating the obvious.

I'm a liberal democrat, I'm against the war in Iraq, and I think Bush should be immediatly impeached.

But, do you really think MORE people should have nuclear bombs?

Furthermore, should more people have nuclear bombs, out of spite?

Fundementalists flew planes into our buildings, unless the nice folks at American Airlines have a different meaning of Red Eye now.

Fundementalists have been blowing our stuff up for a while. And, I just don't think we should give them bigger "booms".

Pretty simple there.

I'm anti-nuke, and I don't think anyone should have them. But, we've maintained a very delicate balance over the last 60 years, by keeping the power of the atom in a very small group of hands, so it's not the wild west.

I'm more disturbed that you would be pro-nuke, because you hate George Bush and American policy. "I'm anti-war, so let's arm more people"

That's paradoxical, and makes absolutely no sense to me. But, far be it from me to inject logic into the situation.



posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 02:28 AM
link   
brimstone735, what proof do you have that they are planning to make nuclear bombs?

Fundementalists did it? Good...doesn't mean Iran did it. Unless because they are all muslims they are all guilty for the same crimes?

Why can't Iran have nuclear power?

Because they are muslim? Or because you think they might attack someone with it?



posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 02:39 AM
link   


I mean, do you actually support Iran having a nuke?


No.



Are you a mad man?


Depends who you ask.



I live in reality.


In deference to the posting guidlines here, I'm not touching this one




And, the notion that we should keep the power of the atom out of the hands of apocalyptic religious nuts, so God can't tell them to kill the rest of us non believers - or smite down the wicked.


Have you noticed who is currently in charge of the largest nuclear arsenal on the planet?
A bunch of apocalyptic religious nuts.

Iran, should it choose to build a nuclear arsenal, is capable of doing so.
The only method of truly ensuring that they don't get them is essentially a full scale invasion and war. Airstrikes alone are not going to cut it, they don't have one facility like Osirak, they have dozens all over the country. Airstrikes are likely to ensure some form of Iranian retaliation anyway - leading to a wider war.

Economic sanctions or tough guy posturing are not going to stop an Iranian nuclear program either. Frankly nothing short of an invasion and "regime change" are going to stop an Iranian nuke weapons program, if they're convinced they need nukes.

The fact, the reality of the situation is this: the costs (human, military, economic, political) of forcing a stop to an Iranian nuke weapons program are likely to be far worse than the costs of Iran actually getting nukes. If Iran gets the bomb, they still have to deal with the inevitability of massive nuclear retaliation - something both the US and Israel are capable of (the US far more so), should they use it. Meaning they won't - like I said before, they're fanatics, but they're not stupid.

Launching a war because of what a Middle Eastern country with a nutty leadership might do is a mistake we've already made recently - and look how well that's working out. And Iran will make Iraq look like a cakewalk by comparison.

[edit on 10/3/05 by xmotex]



posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 02:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
brimstone735, what proof do you have that they are planning to make nuclear bombs?

Fundementalists did it? Good...doesn't mean Iran did it. Unless because they are all muslims they are all guilty for the same crimes?

Why can't Iran have nuclear power?

Because they are muslim? Or because you think they might attack someone with it?


What proof? They're IRAN.

They're governed by the laws of Sharia, and precipitated the entire fundementalist movement by diposing the corrupt Shaw Muhammad Pahlavi, and holding 52 Americans hostage for a year.

In 1992, they established Hezbollah, and subsequently supported and financed terror operations around the known world, and directly responsible for the deaths of over 300 Americans, including the marine barracks in Lebanon. Over a ten year period, they kidnapped and tortured over 30 Americans, including William Buckley and Terry Anderson.

I'm a member of the ACLU and Amnesty International, and the Iranian government routinely executes its citizens for critisizing it's policies and for practicing such dangeorus things as freedom of speech and expression.

Are you actually defending them?

Because, I would truly like to know.



posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 02:49 AM
link   
Back it up with proof then...

Not just your view points, or statements by other people but by proof if this is the case.

As for them being Iran, well done...I clapped.



posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 03:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by brimstone735
I'm still unaware of what point you were actually trying to make, other than the self congratulatory pat on the back for overstating the obvious.

If the point is so obvious, then why don't you get it?


I'm a liberal democrat, I'm against the war in Iraq, and I think Bush should be immediatly impeached.

Well, I'm not an American, so your partisan political self-categorization is meaningless to me, and also to the issue.


But, do you really think MORE people should have nuclear bombs?

Do you really think you should put words in my mouth?

I ask again, where is the proof that Iran is going to make nuclear weapons?


Furthermore, should more people have nuclear bombs, out of spite?


What on Earth are you talking about?


Fundementalists flew planes into our buildings...

Hijack 'suspects' alive and well - BBC News


I'm more disturbed that you would be pro-nuke, because you hate George Bush and American policy. "I'm anti-war, so let's arm more people"

Again, putting words in my mouth, and you even have the gall to put quotation marks around it as if I actually typed that. Where did I say that I was "pro-nuke"? Where's the PROOF?! Iran is a signatory to the NPT. BushCo.'s word that they are "out to nuke us all" is just not good enough any more. They made sure of that with the last fiasco, which, I might add, wasn't the first time anyway.


But, far be it from me to inject logic into the situation.

Yes, far be it...

[edit on 2005-10-3 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 03:05 AM
link   
Anyone who calls themself a liberal democrat would be more interested in global stability and balance rather than arguing for the continuation of American hegemony.

Letting one side of a coin have all the weapons is not conducive to peace. Eventually you get to a point where the armed nation wants what the non-armed nation has and a war of aggression ensues. Now, if both sides were armed with the same weapons the chances of a war of aggression is nullified thanks to mutally assured destruction.

If Iran does not get a nuke we'll see another war in the near future. A war with Iran will make Iraq look like a cakewalk, like mentioned eariler. Just look at North Korea, have they launched their nukes yet? Have they been invaded or has America signed a non-aggression pact with the North Koreans? Its ironic but world peace is best served with either every nation having nukes or better yet, absolutely no country has them.

[edit on 3/10/05 by subz]



posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 03:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
Back it up with proof then...

Not just your view points, or statements by other people but by proof if this is the case.

As for them being Iran, well done...I clapped.


Yeah, have you turned on a televison or opened up a newspaper, at any point in the last twenty five years, or did I suddenly wake up in bizarro world, and this is just the first indicator of the paradigm shft in reality?

And you want proof from me? Are we setting the bar so low that "slightly below average" nations now immediatly deserve to be nuclear powers?

How about you give ME proof that Iran has shown itself to be responsible enough to be a nuclear power. You know, like they gave back all those sattelite dishes they took? Or Salman Rushdie bought himself a lake side villa in the heart of Iran, because its leaders were kind enough to remove its calls for his ASSASSINTATION.



posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 03:15 AM
link   
and I agree wholeheartedly subz, you are on point



I think alot of people would feel better if nobody had them.

I am unsure how to quote someone's comment here but in reply to Whompa1's comment ...

quote: Originally posted by Whompa1
Plain and simple. Iran is not exactly a peaceful nation were everyone has a say in the day to day runnings of it.

I am not comfortable with the US having nuclear power given the last 4 years and what I have learned living in it. I think the state of affairs today is simply appalling.
I don't think I am alone in having this opinion and if I am then I'll admit to just being naive and call it a day.

I appreciate everyone's opinions and theories, this is how we learn right ?



[edit on 3-10-2005 by ImJaded]



posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 03:17 AM
link   


What proof? They're IRAN.


Have you looked at NORTH KOREA lately?

They make the mullahs in Iran look like pussycats.

They already have nukes.

Welcome to the big bad real world.
Crazy people who don't like you have things that can kill you.

If you think nukes are bad, just wait. Biowar, when it comes, will make nuclear weapons look like a bunch of silly toxic firecrackers. And bioweapons are an order of magnitude cheaper to develop and manufacture than nukes.

Look, if you're so upset about Iran getting the bomb, what exactly do you propose we do about it? Please explain to us how to prevent such a scenario without igniting a general regional war? I'm all ears...



Anyone who calls themself a liberal democrat would be more interested in global stability and balance rather than arguing for the continuation of American hegemony.


There are plenty of "liberal Democrat" interventionists.
Look no further than Hillary Clinton's unswerving support for the Iraq War.

There are plenty of right wing anti-interventionists too. So it's not as cut and dried as a simple left/right dichotomy would have it.

[edit on 10/3/05 by xmotex]



posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 03:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
There are plenty of "liberal Democrat" interventionists.
Look no further than Hillary Clinton's unswerving support for the Iraq War.

There are plenty of right wing anti-interventionists too. So it's not as cut and dried as a simple left/right dichotomy would have it.

Oh please, since when has a political party adhered to the ideals it names itself on and pays lip service to? The American Democrats are about as liberal and democratic as the Republican party. Politicians are completely different ball game when it comes to giving a label to ones own ideals.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join