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 accepted new Russian offer

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
Sep

posted on Nov, 27 2005 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by waroftheworlds
IRAQ cannot even get their own house in order. I doubt they have the capability to overthrow or roll-in and take over the Iranian Government. The don't even have a military right now.


That was a three-paragraph post, and you responded to none of my arguments except that Iraq "can’t get their house in order". If you read my post more carefully you see in the case of countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan I said they "host western militaries".


Originally posted by waroftheworldsFurther, you once again support the idea that they are going to use the enriched uranium for WMD and not energy. Your whole first paragraph tries to legitimize why Iranians should have additional WMD. I thought this was for energy?


My friend I backed why Iran needed chemical weapons at the time in the 1980s and why it has continued to produce them up to this date. I will not edit anything in my previous so please find where I said Iran needed nuclear weapons.


Originally posted by waroftheworlds
More LIES on your end....


Did you just call me a liar? Who do you think you are to personally attack me? I showed you why Iran needed nuclear energy but you and your friends conveniently skipped that part because you know as well as I do that you have nothing to say in response. So please show me where I lied, if you cant I demand an apology.

I showed utmost respect to you when I posted my arguments and I expect the same from you when you respond.




posted on Nov, 27 2005 @ 07:41 PM
link   
nuclear weapons rogue, should be given to countries who dont have a PAST or a HABiT OF chaNTIng DEATH to AMierca, or israel..

I agree, any western country should have the avaliability to nuclear waepons.
Be honest..

extrememist muslims care more for there death, than regular people.

We care about our futures.. our kids, or loved ones.

they prey for the day, they are killed and meet allah..

what more of a terrifying person could that be, when you give them the MEANS to destroy large portions of the planet.



[edit on 27-11-2005 by Agit8dChop]



posted on Nov, 27 2005 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Muslims just dont have the desire for life like the rest of the world.
We care about our futures.. our kids, or loved ones.

they prey for the day, they are killed and meet allah..


being muslim and all i find your reply very ignorant and offencive

yes we have radicals (so do other cultures)
but to sum up that we all desire death and dont care about our future is a very blind comment

so which nazi group you from?



posted on Nov, 27 2005 @ 07:50 PM
link   
apologies bodrul, I rethought my wording!


Sep

posted on Nov, 27 2005 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
nuclear weapons rogue, should be given to countries who dont have a PAST or a HABiT OF chaNTIng DEATH to AMierca, or israel..

I agree, any western country should have the avaliability to nuclear waepons.
Be honest..

Muslims just dont have the desire for life like the rest of the world.
We care about our futures.. our kids, or loved ones.

they prey for the day, they are killed and meet allah..

what more of a terrifying person could that be, when you give them the MEANS to destroy large portions of the planet.




Then you really have something to fear since Pakistan has nuclear weapons. By your logic, Pakistan should have wiped off India by now because they are irrational. You should also kick Turkey out of NATO, since they are Muslim and obviously irrational. Also you should cut off all ties with Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain and all other Arab countries. You should also cut all ties with South East Asians as well as Central Asians, since they wish death for everyone and are completely crazy. Also you should kick out a major part of you population and since Europe has large Muslim populations you should fear them too. In fact if I were you and had your logic, I don’t know how I would sleep at night, since everyone is crazy and out to get me.



posted on Nov, 27 2005 @ 07:54 PM
link   
I changed my words, and I realise it came out wrong.

BUT ..

people naturally fear death, you fear death for yourself and everyone around.
even in WAR!

at the moment there is a growing trend of extremeist muslims murdering many many many innocents around the world, souley because they belive in a god that will WELCOME them into his kingdom for doing so.

killing the infedels isnt it?

and for this country who OPENLY screams DEATH TO ISRAEL and DEATH TO AMERICA, who happens to of also GLOATED about the thousands upon THOUSANDS of ready suicide bombers in there midsts in case of a war, should in no way be given a weapon of mass destruction.



posted on Nov, 27 2005 @ 07:57 PM
link   
Sep, im glad you can appreciate the world we live in.
Considering pakistan and india very NEARLY did go to nuclear war..

im not saying all muslim countries are bad..
but im not saying they are all good.

and there is no way this world needs to give the bad ones that DONT have WMDS.... nuclear weapons.

Why give a man who's been in prison, known for assaults.. a gun
should we trust him?

imagine the reprecussions in an american courtoom if u gave a convicted assualt man a gun?... and he murdered someone.

why tempt it?


[edit on 27-11-2005 by Agit8dChop]


Sep

posted on Nov, 27 2005 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Sep, im glad you can appreciate the world we live in.
Considering pakistan and india very NEARLY did go to nuclear war.


But I thought you said the crazy Muslims were out to kill everyone. Why, if they have nuclear weapons, aren't they killing everyone? I thought you said Muslims like to kill and then die and go to allah. Why is this not happening?


Originally posted by Agit8dChop
im not saying all muslim countries are bad..
but im not saying they are all good.


Would you like me to quote what you said? "Muslims just dont have the desire for life like the rest of the world. " When you say "Muslims" I assumed you actually meant "Muslims". If you didnt I appoligize.


Originally posted by Agit8dChop
and there is no way this world needs to give the bad ones that DONT have WMDS.... nuclear weapons.


A) Iran already has WMDs.
B) Iran has the ability to produce WMDs on its own and does not need to be "given" WMDs
C) Iran is not looking for nuclear weapons, thats why it has made the deal mentioned at the start of the thread.


Originally posted by Agit8dChopWhy give a man who's been in prison, known for assaults.. a gun
should we trust him?


All countries have dark epidsodes in their histories. Believe it or not, the US has actually done bad things in the past. So have all the Europian nations. Iran does not see it self as the police man of the world who should tell others what to do and the rest of the world should do the same to Iran. Who are you to say Iran is agrresive? Iran hasnt started a war since the 1700s. Iran although has the capability has not used WMDs in a first strike.



posted on Nov, 27 2005 @ 08:46 PM
link   
SEP, just being they came as CLOSE AS THEY DID in such a RECENT YEAR means something.

And I requoted my BAD WORDING, i admit i said it wrong but i found a better way to say it. only babies cry over spilt milk

and it is happening.
What do you call the sept11 attacks?...
i can see the FANATICAL MUSLIMS that they are raising there fists seconds before they impacted the towre screaming '' allah allah ''

I thought you'd be mature enough to understand that i realise its common sense that they have bio and chem weapons, so when i say wmd surely you realised I was meaning nuclear weapons..

but if not ill spell it out

IRAN under no circtumstances shoudl be allowed NUCLEAR ARMS.
THEY ARE TOO FINATICAL, they have attacke the US in beirut, khobar towres, saudi
and they are screaming in there streets ' death to israel, death to america '

now why the hell would a LOGICAL person argue we SHOULD allow them nukes?

and even so why should we even give them the MEANS to create these nukes..



posted on Nov, 27 2005 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by thermopolis
Russia or France can not be trusted to do anything. They were both neck deep into Oil-for-food and were bought off by Saddam prior to the war.

NO country has the right to nuclear anything except the US. Every nuke plant worldwide should be turned over to the US military to be run by US corporations.

Trust NO ONE especially Russia or France!!!!!!!!!!!


You are kidding, aren't you?

Trust NO ONE but you want to trust the US Military & Subcontracted corporations with every one of the worlds nukes? Wouldn't that give them just a little too much power?

Why would you give Nukes to a corporation anyway? that is the most horrible capitalistic dream I have ever heared.

So you figure the countries should give their nukes to the US, so that the US can protect them? Just like the US Protected Iraq, and Afghanistan, and vietnam, and Russia, and Cuba, and um.. Korea?

---

On the topic now, I really hope that this agreement has been reached and will succeed. I certainly don't deny Iran's right to have a peacefull nuclear program (as much as I personally hate all types of nuclear technology), however as someone said, it can be pretty easy to turn that 'peacefull nuclear program' into a weapons program, and i personally question why a country with so much oil requires nuclear technology for power??

Anyway, I hate nuclear TECH.


Sep

posted on Nov, 27 2005 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
SEP, just being they came as CLOSE AS THEY DID in such a RECENT YEAR means something.


It means that two different countries, one Hindu and the other Muslim, came close to starting a war. It also means that the Muslim and Hindu country were rational enough to not start a nuclear war.


Originally posted by Agit8dChop
And I requoted my BAD WORDING, i admit i said it wrong but i found a better way to say it. only babies cry over spilt milk


I understand what you said was not what you meant.


Originally posted by Agit8dChop
and it is happening.
What do you call the sept11 attacks?...
i can see the FANATICAL MUSLIMS that they are raising there fists seconds before they impacted the towre screaming '' allah allah ''


Yes fanatics exist in all regions, religions and political views. Whether they be Muslim, such as al-Qaede, or they be Tamil Tigers or the IRA, there has been terrorism, violence and hatred growing from different corners of the globe. Hence even though a country may have an Islamic majority, it does not mean that the country should not have access to peaceful nuclear technology.


Originally posted by Agit8dChop
I thought you'd be mature enough to understand that i realise its common sense that they have bio and chem weapons, so when i say wmd surely you realised I was meaning nuclear weapons..

but if not ill spell it out


Well, you seem to have trouble expressing you opinion, because WMDs could refer to a wide range of weapons, as you should know. Hence I pointed out that Iran already has in its possession a great amount of WMDs.


Originally posted by Agit8dChop
IRAN under no circtumstances shoudl be allowed NUCLEAR ARMS.


Iran however should be allowed to use its uranium deposits, which are near the city of Yazd to produce electricity for its people. There is no doubt that nuclear weapon is an evil creation, whether they be in the hands of Iran, US, Russia or Israel. I am sure you agree with me when I say that, not only Iran, but also no other nation on earth should possess these terrible weapons.


Originally posted by Agit8dChop
THEY ARE TOO FINATICAL, they have attacke the US in beirut, khobar towres, saudi


And the US provided Iraq with satellite images of the formations of Iranians so that he used chemical weapons against them killing thousands of young men. The US provided the Shah of Iran with the secret police known as SAVAK, which tortured and killed thousands of civilians. The US overthrow the Iranian democratically elected Prime Minister in order to install a dictator in his place who remained in power for over 35 years. The US shut down an Iranian airliner in the Persian Gulf killing 300 people including 80 children. Now you tell me who was done more wrong?


Originally posted by Agit8dChop
and they are screaming in there streets ' death to israel, death to america '


And the US calls Iran "axis of evil" and a "rogue" country. As an (assuming here) educated westerner you should know the difference between real policies and simple propaganda. Iranians may have demonstrations during which they yell "death to America" but when September 11 took place, the Tehran Mayor wrote a letter to his New York counter part and offered his condolences and the people poured into the streets and lit candles for the American dead, an action which was sponsored by the Iranian government.

www.time.com...


Originally posted by Agit8dChop
now why the hell would a LOGICAL person argue we SHOULD allow them nukes?


As I already said I do not support any country having nuclear weapons.


Originally posted by Agit8dChop
and even so why should we even give them the MEANS to create these nukes..


You would do so because under the NPT you have the obligation to share your nuclear know-how with the rest of the world





[edit on 27-11-2005 by Sep]



posted on Nov, 27 2005 @ 10:36 PM
link   
Its too much of a RISK Allowing these people nuclear weapons.

i dont want to say WHAT IF A facist fundamentalist came to power 'somehow', but that can happen to almost any country. ' heck its happening to the USA now, for the last 6 yrs '

but, will say there is more of a chance, for someone in IRAN to be put in a position high enough to use it, condemming the rest of his country to death..
because, being he is a fundamentalist , he believes that every innocent that dies will be visiting allah, killing the infedels and , being true to there religion.

this is to much of a factor, and thus, they should never be given the chance.


NR

posted on Nov, 27 2005 @ 10:46 PM
link   
baahhh Agit stop your whining! stop acting like little cry babeys. Oh now iran is now going to make nuclear weapons we cant let that happen! how can we??? were being watched/monitered by IAEA all the time and we don't have the know how to do so. Unless we pull out of NPT and kick IAEA out of iran than you can start crying but were under the NPT and so far theres nothing happening. Wow most of you talk in this forum as if you run the country or make the rules around here. Well guess what? we all could care less about what you say cause your words doesn't matter. Just go ahead and ask that to seekerof. As for Sep good job bro you clearly educated people here who have no idea what they are talking about.



posted on Nov, 27 2005 @ 11:00 PM
link   
According to your provided article, NR:


Based on the Russian proposal, which is backed by the European Union, the US and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Iran would be allowed to convert uranium at home in the Isfahan plant before sending it to Russia for enrichment.

This has been done to prevent any Iranian misuse of the enrichment process for producing atomic weapons material.

Your provided source
Yeah, I can agree with that.
Iranian enrichment was the main issue.


Furthermore, this is said:


However, Vaeidi said Iran had neither received an official proposal from Russia nor an official request to meet with the EU trio.

Iranian nuclear officials have, however, said that the country would be ready to agree to such a proposal.

So basically, I can care less what the French say on this. They hardly speak for the entire EU.







seekerof

[edit on 27-11-2005 by Seekerof]


Sep

posted on Nov, 27 2005 @ 11:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Its too much of a RISK Allowing these people nuclear weapons.


Possession of nuclear weapons by any country is a threat to human civilization and hence it is a risk. We agree on this and I don’t understand why you keep bringing it up. I do not back the possession of nuclear armament by Iran or any other country. How about you? Do you support the many governments whose policy is to possess nuclear weapons including your own?


Originally posted by Agit8dChop
i dont want to say WHAT IF A facist fundamentalist came to power 'somehow', but that can happen to almost any country. ' heck its happening to the USA now, for the last 6 yrs '

but, will say there is more of a chance, for someone in IRAN to be put in a position high enough to use it, condemming the rest of his country to death..
because, being he is a fundamentalist , he believes that every innocent that dies will be visiting allah, killing the infedels and , being true to there religion.

this is to much of a factor, and thus, they should never be given the chance.


Do you know much about Iranian political structure? If you did you would have know that what you are proposing is very remote. A group of 86 people who has to pass through a certain process are elected by the people. These people in turn elect a leader. This leader can then have the power to declare war although this power has not been practiced by anyone in the Islamic Republic's history. If the leader is thought to be irrational they can be removed by the assembly that elected him.


[edit on 27-11-2005 by Sep]



posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 01:13 AM
link   
I think Iran got caught with its hand in the candy jar. Russias help might not be happenin after all. Lets see how Moscow reacts to iranian trained Chechnyan Rebels trying to strong arm them. Not to well im thinking. **LINKY** The news source is the telegraph.uk..Dunno how highly they are regarded in the "legit" genre.


"Just as they have orchestrated attacks against British troops in Basra to pressure Britain to drop its opposition to Iran's nuclear programme, so they are trying to put pressure on Moscow by backing Chechen fighters," said a senior intelligence official.


cjf

posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 01:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by S1LV3R4D0
I think Iran got caught with its hand in the candy jar.


These types of rumors/suspicions have ‘floating’ around for some time now…but

...If there is any truth to the article’s claims, Iran is walking herself face first into a 'buzz saw'.


.



posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Russia or France can not be trusted to do anything. They were both neck deep into Oil-for-food and were bought off by Saddam prior to the war.

NO country has the right to nuclear anything except the US. Every nuke plant worldwide should be turned over to the US military to be run by US corporations.

Trust NO ONE especially Russia or France!!!!!!!!!!!


Uh... buddy? Youre talking on a conspiracy forum, and you're playing right into the Nationalism ploy the US is trying to get you into.

You mentioned earlier that the US were the only ones to invent Nukes... thats wrong. Both the Germans and the Russians developed the weapon from Einsteins theories.

Most if not at least half of the scientists that worked on the oppenheimer project in the US, were themselves German.

Germany was developing their nuke at the same time as the US, but never dreamed of actually using it on anyone.

... and you say the US is the only country that should have a Nuclear arsenal... may I remind you that the US is the only country that has been irresponsible enough to actually use them?

No other country in the world has ever nuked a civilian population except fot the US.

If anything, it should be the US to disarm. They are the child holding the gun here, not the middle-eastern, asian, and european countries. They've been around ALOT longer than you have.


On top of that, I see you have been affected by the US propeganda machine. I suggest you stop getting your news from Fox and CNN, and actually get yourself educated about the outside world. Look into other countries history, culture, and government, instead of simply boasting as if the US is better than everyone else.

I think the moderators would agree that Nationalism only clogs up these forums, and cannot be tolerated.



posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 08:56 AM
link   


Germany was developing their nuke at the same time as the US, but never dreamed of actually using it on anyone.

Are you sure they never even dreamed of it?


Personally I don't think we've seen the worst from Ahmadinejad yet.

news.yahoo.com...



Since taking office in August, Ahmadinejad has jettisoned Iran's moderation in foreign policy and pursued a purge in the government, replacing pragmatic veterans with former military commanders and inexperienced religious hard-liners.

The former Tehran mayor's aim is to install a new generation of rulers who will revive the radical fundamentalist goals pursued in the 1980s under the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, father of the 1979 revolution that toppled Iran's pro-Western shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.

All pragmatists, including those seeking better ties with the West, have either lost their posts or likely will lose them soon, pushing the government toward an ever more radical stance in the already volatile Middle East and in the international dispute over Iran's nuclear program, which the United States believes is seeking to build weapons.

Ahmadinejad's call last month for Israel to be "wiped off the map" intensified international concerns about his policies. Iran's resumption of uranium conversion angered some nations that have suspicions over whether the Tehran regime is trying to develop nuclear weapons.

Iranian moderates say the president has harmed his country by isolating it internationally, and now Ahmadinejad's friends are lining up against him. He suffered a humiliating defeat last week when his choice for oil minister was rejected for a third time, an unprecedented failure for an Iranian president.

While parliament is dominated by Ahmadinejad's conservative allies, the president's isolationist stance and his failure to consult on Cabinet appointments have annoyed lawmakers. They warn they will not approve any future nominee unless Ahmadinejad first consults parliament.

Pragmatists within the ruling establishment worry that Ahmadinejad's radical agenda has sidelined a cadre of experienced men at home and isolated the country abroad.

Earlier this month, the government announced that 40 ambassadors and senior diplomats, including supporters of better ties with the West, would be fired. Also let go were pragmatists who handled Iran's nuclear negotiations with Europe under Ahmadinejad's reformist predecessor.

Looks like he wants to religously militarize Iran and dangerously posture with Israel.

Why would any Iranian be proud of this guys' policy? From what I understand, the old Shah had lots of young people who supported him and who were persecuted when the hardliners took over.

I know there has to be large sectors of young people who want a more free, western-style Iran. Where are they while this president of theirs is acting like such a buffoon on the world stage? ...Oh well, maybe when they free their women from the beekeeper-suits Iran will start evolving.



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

Originally posted by thermopolis
NO country has the right to nuclear anything except the US. Every nuke plant worldwide should be turned over to the US military to be run by US corporations.
Trust NO ONE especially Russia or France!!!!!!!!!!!


Comments like this are the reason so much of the world is turning against America if anything Iran has more right to nuclear weapons than the US given the age of the countries and their track records on starting War's.

I know Americans are going to backlash predictably in their usual way but you should stop believing you're own propaganda.

I don't blame American's for their Governments policys how can i when i have the British government doing the exact same stunt's.

I believe the Germans had the bomb first as well why else would there be so many attempts to bomb the heavy water facility's and why else were sub's intercepted carrying enriched uranium what other purpose would they have it for. there was a book i read that had evidence of this as well wish i could remember the title of it if it comes to me i'l edit this post.

Nobody want's the world nuked but the action's of the American Government are pushing more and more nations to seek the bomb so they have a viable defence in my opinion.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join