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.

 

US will invade Iran in '06

page: 12
0
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 05:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
and what about israel who isnt a signer of the NPT, or the fact iran was pressure into it, yet we didnt pressure israel?

You have a serious hangup with Israel, don't you?
I thought you and I had straightened this out, apparently not.
Israel is not the issue here, Iran is.
Iran pursuance of a nuclear weapons program is not because of Israel.
Iran's pursance of a nuclear weapons program would go on even if Israel had NO nukes.
For you to keep bringing Israel into this is ludicrous.
For you to justify Iran's pursuance of a nuclear weapons program because Israel has nukes is further ludicrous.
Next you will be justifying that the rest of the world should have nukes because Israel has them, huh?






seekerof




posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 08:01 AM
link   
www.freerepublic.com...

i dont have a hang up with israel, i have a hang up with unfair treatment which led to terrorist attacks like 9/11 in the first place. israel is the issue, because we are talkin about an issue in the middle east which has been caused partly by israel. and yes IF iran is making nuclear weapons it is definately because of israel.

iran would go on to make nuclear wepons even if israel didnt? first off we suspended their nuclear program on grounds of suspision, 13 months later we have nothing to show for it but more suspision and iran isnt waiting any longer to restart their projects. if israel had no nuclear weapons iran wouldnt even have that excuse and leave them totally unjustified.

technically iran brought israel into this awhile ago, thats why i bring them up. so you believe israel doesnt have nukes? why dont they prove it, because they arent a threat directly to the US? thats a great reason, say screw nonproliferation if it doesnt threaten the US right?

isreal should prove they dont have any, let inspectors come into their country. i mean the nuclear weapons thing is based on an extremely high suspision and israel wont deny they have any. make them prove it and put it to rest.

no because the rest of the world isnt in direct threat of israel nuclear weapons, the middle east is, so they should all be dealt with before we let it blow further out of proportion.

[edit on 9-1-2006 by grimreaper797]
mod edit to remove quote of previous post. It is unnecessary and makes the thread harder to read.

[edit on 9-1-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 07:48 PM
link   
Here is a interesting article with more information on why this is a economic battle that will need to be addressed very soon if the US doesn't want another depression.

www.newswithviews.com...



posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd
Ya never know for sure. Either way though, that's just how I think it should be handled. I just don't understand how simply wanting nuclear proliferation to stop, immediately, equates to being bias as I've been called continuosly by other posters (not you). We can't stop Israel, but if Iran gets them it'll be that much harder to get them both to give them up. And again, what about Iran's other enemies? They'll need some nukes too. It's ridiculous how some like to attack my position has having fantasies about invading Iran and so on, my position is that I don't want to see millions of Iranian and Israeli children and innocent civilians vaporized at the hands of corrupt governments. I think that's about as pro-Iranian as you can get. It may be hard for some here to comprehend, but I value mass human lives over politics and level playing fields. I don't want to see their lives put on the line for an experiment to see if Iran will actually do what it says it will and wipe out Israel or not. But I guess that's just me (and maybe Vagabond and a few others).



First of all, let me say, I appreciate your involvement in this debate.

Secondly, I was wondering if you could tell me your political persuasion. With the NeoCons out there mukking everything up, it's hard to tell w/anyone these days.

Tell me here, or tell me in a u2u. If you want. Knowing would help me to better understand your position.



posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Grim Reaper: I guess israel is stronger the the UN? why cant we stop them? we could stop them if we actually wanted to, but we dont.



Originally posted by 27jd: We can't stop them, unless we have a time machine.


Au Contraire.. How much money do we give Israel in aid each year? If our congresscritters weren't so bought off and blackmailable, we could certainly say to Israel: Tighten it up, buddy. So to speak. But we don't. Money talks and BS walks.




[edit on 1/9/06 by EastCoastKid]

[edit on 1/9/06 by EastCoastKid]

[edit on 1/9/06 by EastCoastKid]



posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
First of all, let me say, I appreciate your involvement in this debate.

Secondly, I was wondering if you could tell me your political persuasion. With the NeoCons out there mukking everything up, it's hard to tell w/anyone these days.

Tell me here, or tell me in a u2u. If you want. Knowing would help me to better understand your position.


No problem, I am registered democrat currently but I don't really follow politics, I think reps and dems are just puppets on either hand of the same master. I was originally registered as libertarian when I was younger, but I was kinda tricked into that because they told me they wanted to legalize marijuana, when I was 18 that's all I needed to hear. I like alot of libertarian ideas, but I'm not conservative by a long shot. I can't stand the neo-cons, I voted for Kerry (lesser of two evils in my eyes), in the same election I voted for John McCain.



Au Contraire.. How much money do we give Israel in aid each year? If our congresscritters weren't so bought off and blackmailable, we could certainly say to Israel: Tighten it up, buddy. So to speak. But we don't. Money talks and BS walks.


But we still can't stop them from developing them, since they already have them, that's what I was saying. We'd have to reverse in their case. I know, semantics.



posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 10:49 PM
link   
just because they already have them doesnt mean we cant stop them front making any more and take away the ones they have. im not going over this again. its either a simple idea or youll never get it. take away all the nukes in the middle east and no one in the middle east can have nukes.



posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 10:56 PM
link   
Hang on.... I gotta turn the Tonight Show off. It sounds like a horrible line-up. Need.. CD..

ECK hunts down an excellent CD..

"Wish You Were Here" Pink Floyd

The last time I heard this I was with my best friend, who died last summer (3 1/2 mos ago). So here we go....

Here's to Dan..

John Kerry was the first Democrat I've ever voted for. And I only voted for him 'cause Dean got knocked out. There was no way I was gonna vote for Bush (again); and, on the off-chance my vote actually counted, I wanted it to help knock Bush out.


But we still can't stop them from developing them, since they already have them, that's what I was saying. We'd have to reverse in their case. I know, semantics.


So they have them? We hold the purse strings, supposedly. Let's try cutting off the allowance if the Israelis won't sit down and negotiate peace in good faith. And I'm not one-sided. I would expect all sides to deal straight.

[edit on 1/9/06 by EastCoastKid]



posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 11:07 PM
link   
lets put it like this
you have one guy with a gun and fully loaded ready to shoot, but hes quiet and not saying much. then you got the guy who just ALLEGEDLY ordered a gun in the mail and it may be here in a couple weeks. hes ranting about how the guy with the gun should be wiped off the map. guy with the gun just stands there. whos the bigger threat? the guy with the gun. because UNTIL he gets the gun hes all talk. meanwhile the other guy with the gun has it on the other guys . so as soon as he opens the box, BOOM!

sure the guy without the gun could just not pursue ever getting a gun, but when the guy with the gun decides he wants to expand, his gun will be blazing and the guy without the gun doesnt stand a chance. its all peace til the status quo changes.



posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 11:21 PM
link   
Here's the thing. You're always gonna have the bigger guy that steps in and sez, drop it, you're both surrounded.

We have you all on film.

We know who you are.

There's no way out.

The superpowers (or whatever the hell we're known as anymore) should step in and husband along a peaceful resolution. There's no reason we can't. The only reason peace cannot be agreed on here, in my best estimation, is because the Bush administration, for whatever reason, is throughly sold on doing Iran.

It's just plain stooopid.



posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
"Wish You Were Here" Pink Floyd


Good stuff.



The last time I heard this I was with my best friend, who died last summer (3 1/2 mos ago). So here we go....

Here's to Dan..


I'm truly sorry to hear that, may he rest in peace. The death of somebody close to you that's young can be a trip I know. When I think about death I realize I was dead for as long before I was conceived as I will be after my life ends. When you think about it, we've all been dead. I'm off topic now, sorry.



John Kerry was the first Democrat I've ever voted for. And I only voted for him 'cause Dean got knocked out. There was no way I was gonna vote for Bush (again); and, on the off-chance my vote actually counted, I wanted it to help knock Bush out.


That's pretty much why I voted Kerry, he was the only one who had a chance at beating Bush.



So they have them?


It's not as much a secret as they wish it was I'm sure.




We hold the purse strings, supposedly. Let's try cutting off the allowance if the Israelis won't sit down and negotiate peace in good faith. And I'm not one-sided. I would expect all sides to deal straight.


Fully agree.




Originally posted by grimreaper797

just because they already have them doesnt mean we cant stop them front making any more and take away the ones they have. im not going over this again. its either a simple idea or youll never get it. take away all the nukes in the middle east and no one in the middle east can have nukes.


You're gonna cause me to pull an Ariel Sharon, I think my brain is bleeding. I agree we need to pressure Israel, I really really do. Please understand that I've been saying that all along. I agree there should be no nukes in the ME, on earth for that matter. We only differ in what we think is the best way to achieve those means. That's all. I beg you to understand that.


I just saw a news update on FOX (too lazy to get up and turn it) news that all of the permanent members of the UN security council, including Russia and China, have issued seperate warnings to Iran that they're gonna face sanctions.



posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 11:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd
I just saw a news update on FOX (too lazy to get up and turn it) news that all of the permanent members of the UN security council, including Russia and China, have issued seperate warnings to Iran that they're gonna face sanctions.



Its just like being swarmed by angry mods wielding bright red warnings on ATS.



posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 11:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Its just like being swarmed by angry mods wielding bright red warnings on ATS.



Oh yeah, I just noticed mine is gone. I was feeling like a rebel for a few days.



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 12:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Its just like being swarmed by angry mods wielding bright red warnings on ATS.



Oh yeah, I just noticed mine is gone. I was feeling like a rebel for a few days.


My first week back I got three.



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 10:08 AM
link   
Hello

I justed posted a link from the BBC about Iran being back in the 'peaceful nuclear research' business.

news.bbc.co.uk...

They're either going to take this right to wire to get trade and aid from the EU (when it comes to appeasing people, we wrote the book) *or* they are deadly serious about this and going to get bombed by someone. Why invade when you can use cruise missiles?

TD



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 08:56 PM
link   
Hey everybody,

I ran across this article today. It's an excellent analysis on Iran and its capabilities, by William Rivers Pitt.







Attack on Iran: A Looming Folly
By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Perspective

Monday 09 January 2006

The wires have been humming since before the New Year with reports that the Bush administration is planning an attack on Iran. "The Bush administration is preparing its NATO allies for a possible military strike against suspected nuclear sites in Iran in the New Year, according to German media reports, reinforcing similar earlier suggestions in the Turkish media," reported UPI on December 30th.

"The Berlin daily Der Tagesspiegel this week," continued UPI, "quoted 'NATO intelligence sources' who claimed that the NATO allies had been informed that the United States is currently investigating all possibilities of bringing the mullah-led regime into line, including military options. This 'all options are open' line has been President George W Bush's publicly stated policy throughout the past 18 months."

An examination of the ramifications of such an attack is desperately in order.

1. Blowback in Iraq

The recent elections in Iraq were dominated by an amalgam of religiously fundamentalist Shi'ite organizations, principally the Dawa Party and the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI). Both Dawa and SCIRI have umbilical connections to the fundamentalist Shi'ite leadership in Iran that go back decades. In essence, Iran now owns a significant portion of the Iraqi government.
www.truthout.org...



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 09:41 PM
link   
Interesting read, seems to be 'worst case scenario' oriented, but that's the way things should be expected so there's no surprises. Now could you imagine the ramifications being outlined involving a 'worst case scenario' of a nuclear exchange between Israel and Iran? Even a 'best case scenario'? That would probably be a much longer and more sobering read, I'll try and find one if I can.



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 09:53 PM
link   
Frankly look at it all like this:
If one nation is allowed to have nukes EVERYONE should be allowed to have them, then NO ONE will want them because ANYONE can kill them.
Iran will more than likely be invaded or bombed (or both) unless they find someone else to pick on.
Isreal could be used as a front for it all so the US wont have to do anything besides sit back and let Israel bomb them.
Iran has every right to seek nuclear power if they want it, when you denigh countries their rights they become hostile and are more likely to turn on you. Mistrust leads to war or as a roman proverb said:
An uneasy peace is worse than war.

I think any invasion of Iran will be done by 3 nations:
US
Britain
Isreal

Iran would only seek nukes if you threatened them and the US has done exactly that. Their leaders may not be the best in the world but nor is bush or the current administration in China, the point is if you want to pick on someone who DOES train terrorists and the like go invade Saudi Arabia. They have public executions and stoning of women and are subject to countless attrocities, shoot there was a national geographic on it AND kuwait once. If you want to stop terrorism stop terrorizing other nations and harming their economy or demonizing them for something you have flaws with as well. You are no better than them if you bow down to their ways which the US has.
Never rule out something that sounds impossible because sometimes they are what happens not the forseen settup of things.



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 10:10 PM
link   
The nukes Dumbya and the Israelis need to be worrying about are NOT Iran's. Iran has an ADDRESS. It is subject to RETALIATION. This is called mutual deterrence. It worked during the Cold War and it will work now.

The Net Effect of an Iranian Bomb would be to restrict American and Israeli Freedom of Action in the Middle East. Ask yourself. Would that be such a bad thing? Would less Invasions and Bombings be such a bad thing?

The Nukes we need to be WORRYING about areTHE NUKES WITHOUT ADDRESSES, that is THE AL-QAEDA SUITCASE NUKES that have been smuggled across the porous Mexican AMERICAN BORDER OR CAN BE.

THAT IS WHAT WE SHOULD BE STUDYING. THIS IS WHAT WE SHOULD BE CONCENTRATING ON. THIS IS OUR WORSE NIGHTMARE

IRAN is not our worse Nightmare.

OK. ALL YOU ISRAELI STOOGES. QUIT SALLIVATING AT THE PROSPECT OF BOMBING IRAN. YOU ARE WORSE THAN PAVLOVS' Subjects

[edit on 10-1-2006 by hwangloangbeeg]



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 10:11 PM
link   
Here's some interesting reading material.....


Indeed, the Iranian nuclear program is primarily designed to provide a strategic response to American hegemony in world affairs. Teheran wants to be able to continue to oppose American policies and to deter possible American action against the radical Islamic regime.

At the same time, its nuclear program threatens regional stability in the Middle East. The emergence of a nuclear-armed Iran would inevitably have a chain-effect, generating further proliferation in the region. Mideastern leaders, who invariably have high threat perceptions, are unlikely to look nonchalantly on a nuclear Iran. States such as Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and, of course, Iraq would hardly be able to resist the temptation to counter Iranian influence by adopting similar nuclear postures.

A multi-polar nuclear Middle East would be a recipe for disaster.

A nuclear Iran would also enhance Iranian hegemony in the oil-rich Persian Gulf area, as well as in the Caspian Basin. Giving revolutionary Iran a handle over this energy reservoir, which contains much of the world's hydrocarbon reserves, would further strengthen Iran’s position in the energy market. Because such a position would also make Iran's containment even more difficult, it would necessarily embolden Islamic radicals everywhere.
www.biu.ac.il...


This site outlines six possible scenarios that could cause worldwide nuclear war, if Iran gets nukes, we can add several more.....



Any nuclear attack on Israel by terrorists, or Pakistan, Russia or China will result in Israel’s surviving land, air and submarine carried or based missiles being used against Arab and Muslim capitals. A particularly devastating attack (including with chemical or biological weapons) might result in possibly in a full scale "Samson Option" attack on European and Russian targets. The latter of course would result in Russian retaliation against the United States, perhaps its punishment for not having done enough to protect Israel.
www.carolmoore.net...



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join