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.

 

Diplomats: Iran May Compromise on Nukes

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 11 2005 @ 06:05 PM
link   
hopefully this will bring a cooling down effect to all the rhetoric of war with iran...in the very least, if they are sincere in their interest for nuclear power without weapons, its a good starting point....if its true (it is sourced from fox).

www.foxnews.com...




posted on Oct, 11 2005 @ 06:33 PM
link   
Been there. Done that. Bought the t-shirt. How many more years are we gonna put up with this wishy-washiness from Iran? For every DAY that passes without resolve, we are one step closer to waking up tomorrow and finding out that Israel has been obliterated.

They have been back and forth enough already. It is time for action. OMG, I am starting to sound like a conservative. Well, conservative shmervative, I don't care. Iran gets their hands on nukes, and there is gonna be war. No doubt in my mind on that. Neither the US or Israel is about to let that happen, no matter what. Israel for its reasons and the US for its reasons.

And oh, (before you start harping on North Korea, and why they maybe have nukes now, and the fact that there is no war yet over that)- This is different- the threat will be immediate to Israel, one which they refuse to live under. And I can't say I blame them, because this goes beyond politics. At least all countries recognize the sovereignty of the United States. In contrast, the ruling factions in Iran have never recognized Israel, and would do anything to be able to wipe it completely off the map.



posted on Oct, 11 2005 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
They have been back and forth enough already. It is time for action. OMG, I am starting to sound like a conservative. Well, conservative shmervative, I don't care. Iran gets their hands on nukes, and there is gonna be war. No doubt in my mind on that. Neither the US or Israel is about to let that happen, no matter what. Israel for its reasons and the US for its reasons.


You're one true patriot aren't you. I'm surprise the word "war" comes out of your mouth so fluidly that you make it sound as if you said "dinner". I don't understand you Americans. War is like your way of assuring peace in the world. I guess you guys are stuck with the expression of "fight fire with fire" right?


Originally posted by TrueAmerican
At least all countries recognize the sovereignty of the United States.


All hail almighty America. Please.


I pardon you patriotism as we all have it but your perspective on war is very disgusting and barbaric.

[edit on 11/10/05 by Heartagram]



posted on Oct, 11 2005 @ 11:42 PM
link   
Diplomats: Iran May Compromise on Nukes
Heartagram?
Iran is simply buying more time.
Nothing patriotic about thinking or indicating such, is there?






seekerof



posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 12:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Heartagram?
Iran is simply buying more time.
Nothing patriotic about thinking or indicating such, is there?



Nope. Just plain disturbing. I personally wouldn't be such keen patriot of my country and support its every move if it we're to wage war against "evil" countries that needs liberation.

There's a saying:

"If you're at odds with someone than it's that someone but if you're at odds with everyone than it's you".



posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 12:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Heartagram
You're one true patriot aren't you. I'm surprise the word "war" comes out of your mouth so fluidly that you make it sound as if you said "dinner". I don't understand you Americans. War is like your way of assuring peace in the world. I guess you guys are stuck with the expression of "fight fire with fire" right?


"If you want peace, prepare for war."

This aplies today, just as it has through out history.

Why do you single out America? Has Europe not had wars of their own, and isn't America criticized for NOT getting involved in them fast enough (WWI, WWII)? Has the middle East in all of it's history had wars?

No one WANTS war, but the FACT is, NO ONE wants Iran to have nukes either. Not the US, not Isreal, not France, not the UK, and not Germany. They are all willing to eventually go to war over this situation. Iran with nuclear weapons would almost definitely lead to an all out nuclear war in the ME, and most likely end up in Europe. Is that what you want?

Need I list all the times in history where military action taken sooner would have been the better course? Sometimes, peace just isn't an option, and for the western world, Iran having nukes is worth going to war over.



posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 12:30 AM
link   
ahh, Heartagram. You keep up with current events? Are you aware of the the situation between Isreal and Iran? Are you aware of Israel's repeated stance on Iran obtaining nuclear weapons?

Ok, here: Since you seem to be so hellbent on picking apart my comments and taking them out of context to turn them into a personal debate over our different perceptions of war and American sovereignty, I'll change that just for you to read differently:


Iran gets their hands on nukes, and there are going to be at least limited attempted airstrikes on Iran's nuclear facilities. No doubt in my mind on that.


There ya happy? Ok, now it's my turn. I get to take one of your comments completely out of context, and do with it whatever I want. Yipee!
Ready?





Homey don't play dat.

Instead Homey writes and plays songs. And ohh, I forgot to mention! Maybe I should upload that one tune I wrote called "Never Argue With An Idiot," inspired by Springer's signature (I think it was his, not sure). For it is so true that an Idiot will try to drag you down to their level and beat you with experience. I might even dedicate it to you, Heartagram, but only if you agree to use your immense wisdom to take it out of context.

[edit on 12-10-2005 by TrueAmerican]



posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 09:34 AM
link   
when i first went from the reader to the poster by joining this site, i firmly believed that iran with nuclear power would lead to iran with nukes and WWIII. now, im not so convinced of that. as pointed out to me in previous threads, pakistan (a muslim country) has had nukes for years and has never threatened israel with them (maybe thats just because theyre tied up in a cold war with india, i dont know). granted the rhetoric coming out of pakistan is no where near as bad as that coming from the mullahs in iran, but you have to wonder, why would they be dumb enough to use nukes if, in fact, their intention is to acquire them? they have to know that the minute they launched one, they would cease to exist (not just as a nation, but as as human beings....green glass isnt very healthy).

now, dont get me wrong, if it turns out that they are indeed building nukes and not just trying to find a new source of power so they can export more oil by using less, im all for taking out the building sites. but again, what would be the benefit for them to start a nuclear war?



posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 11:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
ahh, Heartagram. You keep up with current events? Are you aware of the the situation between Isreal and Iran? Are you aware of Israel's repeated stance on Iran obtaining nuclear weapons?


I'm sorry. I haven't been a good boy and reading the newspapers. NUTS! You should do some research into what Israel has that makes your statement irrelevant and nonsense. I won't tell you what Israel has. Do some research will ya? go boy. fewwwiiit.


Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Iran gets their hands on nukes, and there are going to be at least limited attempted airstrikes on Iran's nuclear facilities. No doubt in my mind on that.


Ah, playing around with the words. My favourite kind of game. I'd say it's a waste of space don't you. Nothing more than jockeying around for position.


Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Instead Homey writes and plays songs. And ohh, I forgot to mention! Maybe I should upload that one tune I wrote called "Never Argue With An Idiot," inspired by Springer's signature (I think it was his, not sure). For it is so true that an Idiot will try to drag you down to their level and beat you with experience. I might even dedicate it to you, Heartagram, but only if you agree to use your immense wisdom to take it out of context.


Guess one should look into the mirror first.

Your level of understanding towards what is happening is so mediocre. Go behind the stage and find out what's really going on rather than waste your time with insignificant thoughts of pride. The nations that are pressing Iran to stop supposedly creating nukes are the ones who should have a hard good look at their own backyard. Not that trying to stop Iran from further achieving their alleged goal of nuclear armament is a bad thing.

How the hell is Iran going to submit to countries who themselves keeps thousands of nukes?

It's like you're fat and you're demanding another fat guy to slim down.

Go on, reflect TrueAmerican(if you really stand up to your nickname).



posted on Oct, 13 2005 @ 12:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Heartagram

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
ahh, Heartagram. You keep up with current events? Are you aware of the the situation between Isreal and Iran? Are you aware of Israel's repeated stance on Iran obtaining nuclear weapons?


I'm sorry. I haven't been a good boy and reading the newspapers. NUTS! You should do some research into what Israel has that makes your statement irrelevant and nonsense. I won't tell you what Israel has. Do some research will ya? go boy. fewwwiiit.


so you admit that you are posting your opinion without having done any research at all? i'd like to say i'm surprised, but, well, you know, i'm not.



Your level of understanding towards what is happening is so mediocre. Go behind the stage and find out what's really going on rather than waste your time with insignificant thoughts of pride.


maybe a little of your own advise is in order?



How the hell is Iran going to submit to countries who themselves keeps thousands of nukes?


maybe because they signed the non-proliferation treaty?



Go on, reflect TrueAmerican(if you really stand up to your nickname).


back to name-calling...well, i guess youve proven that is what you do best.



posted on Oct, 13 2005 @ 12:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
Why do you single out America? Has Europe not had wars of their own, and isn't America criticized for NOT getting involved in them fast enough (WWI, WWII)? Has the middle East in all of it's history had wars?


Same goes for why do you single out Iran for having nuclear programs? Why not further widening the circle with who has nuclear weapons? Oops! That wouldn't be fair because U.S would take a large portion of that spectrum.

My response to your view about war is that America gets criticized about not joining the war fast enough only by the ones who were fighting the war most notably the Allied Powers. They wanted the Americans to get involve because they had no one else to turn to DURING that TIME.


Originally posted by American Mad Man
They are all willing to eventually go to war over this situation. Iran with nuclear weapons would almost definitely lead to an all out nuclear war in the ME, and most likely end up in Europe. Is that what you want?


So you think if a war against Iran to stop them from creating nuclear weapons will eventually stop the war that will spread to other parts of the world? You're a 100% sure on that? Gee.


War just don't end that easily once you start it in such a scale. Furthermore, the result of such would be catastrophic for all the nations involve. You're telling me you want to risk having millions of men die in war just to ensure million of other may live from the alleged Iran nuclear program?

Take note of "may" and "alleged".

Anyways, finish up with Iraq first ya?



posted on Oct, 13 2005 @ 12:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by snafu7700
so you admit that you are posting your opinion without having done any research at all? i'd like to say i'm surprised, but, well, you know, i'm not.


I'm surprise you don't get sarcasm. Hmm, then again. I'm not.


Originally posted by snafu7700
maybe a little of your own advise is in order?


Guess you too huh?. I sympathise thee.


Originally posted by snafu7700
maybe because they signed the non-proliferation treaty?


Go and read more about the NPT my dear friend. Especially the section where it states the important points of the treaty such as nuclear disarmament. Ever heard of that?


Originally posted by snafu7700
back to name-calling...well, i guess youve proven that is what you do best.


I'm good at that and many other things too. Thank you.



posted on Oct, 13 2005 @ 12:52 AM
link   
Let's keep this civil please. No implications or degrading language.



posted on Oct, 13 2005 @ 12:53 AM
link   
Heartagram, if you're going to make claims please provide evidence to support them.

That aside, everyone knock off the slights upon each other.



posted on Oct, 13 2005 @ 01:17 AM
link   



posted on Oct, 13 2005 @ 01:25 AM
link   


Go and read more about the NPT my dear friend. Especially the section where it states the important points of the treaty such as nuclear disarmament. Ever heard of that?


yes, and again, if you did a little research, you would find that we have half the nuclear weapons we did during the cold war. for all nations to scale down takes quite some time, but it has been happening.



posted on Oct, 13 2005 @ 02:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by snafu7700


Go and read more about the NPT my dear friend. Especially the section where it states the important points of the treaty such as nuclear disarmament. Ever heard of that?


yes, and again, if you did a little research, you would find that we have half the nuclear weapons we did during the cold war. for all nations to scale down takes quite some time, but it has been happening.


Its all very well saying you got rid of half (which I dont believe for a second) but do you not think that the 10,000 weapons which the US has is rather extreme given the Cold War ended years ago and they also signed the NPT (the very same treaty agreement that they are strong-arming Iran with).

think about it for a second....the only reason the US has nukes is for detterent (for the time being, anyway)..the same for the Russians..everyone has them because Mr Bad round the corner has them too.....

Do you not think, considering Israel and the US have nukes (openly hostile to Iran since the 1979 revolution, whatever the reasons, I know Iran is far from being nice back) that Iran may want them to ensure its own sovereignty, or is that only something that nice, pleasant Western countries can do?

What I am saying, is not advocating that Iran should have Nukes, but rather why should anyone have nukes? As long as one team can have them and the other is "not allowed", there will always be a feeling of being hard done by and one of insecurity, which only breeds further resentment and instability.



posted on Oct, 13 2005 @ 03:21 AM
link   
Heartagram, What? Of course I know Israel has nukes. Duh? Is that what you meant when you said "go research what Israel has, boy?"

Maybe you don't get it, Heartagram. Isreal is not about to launch a nuclear attack first on Iran. Forget it. But if Iran gets the chance to take out Israel by obtaining nuclear weapons, the chances are higher IMO that they would launch on Israel first. Why? Because of Iran's deep hatred and non-recognition of Israel, and Iran's continuing desire to dispose of Israel. But also because it will not take too many nukes to basically do just that and WIPE Israel off the map.

Israel is a very small country with limited escape routes, except maybe to the Mediterranian Sea. In contrast, Iran dwarfs Israel in size, and there are plenty of rural areas people can go in the event of imminent danger. Israel will not be put in the position by Iran to HAVE to retaliate, because chances are, there won't be much left to retaliate WITH if Iran attacks first with nuclear weapons. Even in a best case scenario for Israel, MAD doesn't really apply because of the sheer size difference of the countries, and the likelihood that much of Iran may still survive, while most if not all of Isreal would be destroyed. And I am talking here just between Iran and Israel, with no other countries involved.

Therefore, if Israel is pushed into that position because international diplomacy fails to prevent Iran from joining the nuke club, Israel's best hope and likely action will be to attempt conventional strikes on Iran's nuke facilities, BEFORE Iran has a chance to get their nukes up, positioned, and targeted. Either that or Israel may continue very high pressure on the US/EU to attempt the strikes if they sense Iran has, or is about to get, nuclear weapons.

Now that makes sense to me, and maybe I am totally wrong. Maybe my understanding of the situation is totally off, and I need more research. Ok, if that's the case, please help me learn by pointing a place for me to go. And the links you pointed to already are not what I am talking about. I have been clear on what I have said, and I haven't initiated any personal attack on you here, the way you did me above, or taken any of your statements completely out of context to mount an attack on you. Can you please state what you need to say without the personal attacks, and hopefully keep my statements in context? Thanks.



posted on Oct, 13 2005 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Heartagram
Go and read more about the NPT my dear friend. Especially the section where it states the important points of the treaty such as nuclear disarmament. Ever heard of that?



Originally posted by stumason
Its all very well saying you got rid of half (which I dont believe for a second) but do you not think that the 10,000 weapons which the US has is rather extreme given the Cold War ended years ago and they also signed the NPT (the very same treaty agreement that they are strong-arming Iran with).

think about it for a second....the only reason the US has nukes is for detterent (for the time being, anyway)..the same for the Russians..everyone has them because Mr Bad round the corner has them too.....

Do you not think, considering Israel and the US have nukes (openly hostile to Iran since the 1979 revolution, whatever the reasons, I know Iran is far from being nice back) that Iran may want them to ensure its own sovereignty, or is that only something that nice, pleasant Western countries can do?

What I am saying, is not advocating that Iran should have Nukes, but rather why should anyone have nukes? As long as one team can have them and the other is "not allowed", there will always be a feeling of being hard done by and one of insecurity, which only breeds further resentment and instability.


you make very good points, and i agree that we are not perfect. i also agree that nukes should be abolished world wide. but as you indicated in your post, it has to be a scaling down, or one country has a monopoly, and is therefore, dangerous. i'll check my facts to be positive, but i'm pretty sure that all nuclear nations are about on an even keel, due to the NPT. completely getting rid of them will take some time, and TWOT has kind of put it on the back burner for all parties involved (not just the US). it is my hope, however, that in our lifetimes (as long as we can stop the proliferation of nukes to other countries), that maybe we can see the destruction of all stockpiles (it may be a pipe dream, but one could hope).



[edit on 13-10-2005 by sanctum]



posted on Oct, 13 2005 @ 10:10 AM
link   
any compromise from Iran on the nukes is just a tactic like Hitlers. They stalling for time while they build up the arsenal and position troops for best effect. There goal is total war. It is the opposite of what von Klauswitz said. Politics is simply war by other means.




top topics



 
0

log in

join