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: 14
0
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
If the Taepo Dong 2 can do what it's supposed to and ends up in Iranian hands, we're going to be dealing with something completely unprecedented.


I agree, you wouldn't want that type-o dong penetrating your personal space, it's a much larger and more powerful type-o dong than the first.




Nuclear proliferation is dangerous. A nuclear Iran is in a position to be particular dangerous. They have every motive to do it and very little motive not to. Things have not come anywhere near as bad as they have the potential to be in a worst case scenario, and that makes this the best possible time to exhaust every peaceful alternative and do it sincerely, and then, but only then, if necessary, resort to force before the worst case scenario draws near.


Some folks just refuse to see the bigger picture Vegobond, lol. They let their dislike of Bush cloud all judgement, even the fact that it's not just the U.S. and Britain who are concerned this time. It's a shame Bush has such profound influence over their thinking that he has brought them down to his level as far as not planning ahead effectively.




posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by HumanBean
Unfortunately, it's a little more complicated than that


No doubt. Hey - I can dream, right?


I for one would rather see all the money that currently goes to NASA redirected to energy research and the like. Exploring space is important but we have to clean up our own back yard first


That is the smartest thing I've heard today, HumanBean.


[edit on 1/11/06 by EastCoastKid]



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 10:51 PM
link   
Here's an article I saw today. It's covering the rumblings. The E-3 are growing impatient with Iran and taking the US' position. Russia and China are not so cool with it.

Iran's leadership is playing Russian Roulette.




UN Security Council may receive Iran complaint this month

By News Agencies

The UN Security Council may be asked to consider action against Iran this month after Tehran spurned international warnings and resumed nuclear
fuel research, a key diplomat said on Wednesday.

An expected referral to the council from the governing board of the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA, would put the controversy in the hands of the 15-nation council, which could impose sanctions.
www.haaretz.com...



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 10:54 PM
link   
hmm i just read gold has hit a 25 year high, the experts say to hold gold when poo is going to hit the fan. ...



Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 11/1/2006 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 10:55 PM
link   
Yeah, that's what I heard a couple days ago, about the warnings. But this article says Iran blew them off, even Russia and China. I don't think anybody wants to see a nuclear exchange in the middle of the oil.



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 11:08 PM
link   
China and Iran recently signed a massive oil deal that will keep China moving for years to come. The last thing China needs is for Iran to get bombed back to the stone age and possibly taken over by western forces.

We don't need China retaliating against us, on behalf of Iran. That would be a serious mistake. They hold the second largest amount of US debt after Japan. Almost a trillion dollars worth. If they called in the notes, and dumped the petro dollar for the euro, we'd be screwed without a kiss. No more fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here crap. If that scenario actually unfolded, we here at home would be struggling to survive and under those circumstances, that could be as bad as fighting in a war.



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 11:15 PM
link   
Right, but if China made such a deal with Iran, then I don't see it likely they want Iran to go waving nukes at Israel, if nuclear conflict erupts, there goes their oil. I think they'd rather cut a behind the scenes deal with the west and perhaps share control than see it all go up in smoke, especially if they depend on it that much, don't you? China has no love for the Iranian government, all they care about is the oil.



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 11:26 PM
link   
The U.S. is on a path to destruction. I am a citizen of the U.S., and see resemblances between the U.S., and previous empires. The Roman Empire fell because of its partial inner-corruption and major abuse of power. The U.S. government is GREATLY abusing its power with these wars, they are almost ridiculous. I realize that they are 'threats' because over their "WMD" ambitions; but yet I also see that we "aren't a threat" with our thousands of WMDs. "What if the democracy we thought we were serving no longer exists, and the Republic has become the very evil we've been fighting to destroy. This war represents a failure to listen." I can't varify if that is a 100% exact quote, the word "Republic" may have been a different word, but I think this is an excellent quote to describe what is happening with these wars. The U.S. seems to be slowly "eliminating" it's foes, depriving them of WMDs, or at least using the excuse to prevent them from getting them. A war in Iran will most likely only provoke more question within the UN about the United States stability. Hopefully they see the fast-paced progression to the status of an Empire being enacted in the U.S., and can find a non-hostile way of preventing this and future wars over the "ambition of WMDs."

Just my 2 cents.

[edit on 11-1-2006 by Omniscient]



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 11:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd
Right, but if China made such a deal with Iran, then I don't see it likely they want Iran to go waving nukes at Israel,


Of course they don't. If the Chinese are into anything, it's discretion. Iran might just be acting so beligerently b/c they know that China has their back; possibly Russia, too.


if nuclear conflict erupts, there goes their oil.


Whose to say this isn't a further PNAC measure to wrest/keep western control over those same oil fields, and of OPEC? If we can snatch it first.. so goes the thinking. It's delusional, but I digress.


I think they'd rather cut a behind the scenes deal with the west and perhaps share control than see it all go up in smoke, especially if they depend on it that much, don't you?


Welcome to the world of the grand chessboard and brinksmanship.


China has no love for the Iranian government, all they care about is the oil.


The US government has no love for Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, or any other mideastern government, either. The US government does not have friends; it has associates.



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 11:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Omniscient
What if the Republic has become the very evil we've been trying to destroy." I can't varify if that is a 100% exact quote, the word "Republic" may have been a different word, but I think this is an excellent quote to describe what is happening with these wars.


Bit too much Star Wars maybe?





A war in Iran will most likely only provoke more question within the UN about the United States stability. Hopefully they see the fast-paced progression to the status of an Empire being enacted in the U.S., and can find a non-hostile way of preventing this and future wars over the "ambition of WMDs."


Yep, way too much Star Wars, we can't reach Empire status until the Death Star is completed....

Anyways, in case you're not aware, or maybe still in Iraq mode, the Republic, or Empire, or whatever, is not alone in their concern over Iran. ALL permanent members of the security council are warning Iran to stop. But I guess the Emperor has used his sith powers to control the minds of the other members.



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 11:37 PM
link   
Well, to be honest. I've not very sure about many recent events regarding this. I haven't been on this site for months, so I just thought I'd jump in.



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 11:37 PM
link   
Well, to be honest. I've not very sure about many recent events regarding this. I haven't been on this site for months, so I just thought I'd jump in.



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 11:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Omniscient
I haven't been on this site for months, so I just thought I'd jump in.


What I think 27 is trying to say is, we're glad to have you in on the discussion.


The truth is, I think there are a lot of people in the dark on this Iran issue. I, for one, trust the Bush administration no more than I trust Iran's leadership. They've both been unceasingly deceptive.



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 11:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Of course they don't. If the Chinese are into anything, it's discretion. Iran might just be acting so beligerently b/c they know that China has their back; possibly Russia, too.


They don't know anything, they hope. Russia and China are not happy with Iran's actions.



Whose to say this isn't a further PNAC measure to wrest/keep western control over those same oil fields, and of OPEC? If we can snatch it first.. so goes the thinking. It's delusional, but I digress.


I don't think so, I think China has more of a hand in things than we even know. Like you said, China has alot invested in the U.S. I wouldn't be surprised if this WHOLE mideast mess isn't all a scheme by the major players to get control of the oil and restructure things. Of course Russia and China have to voice opposition, maybe make a few bucks selling outdated weapons that we can destroy, but that's it.




The US government has no love for Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, or any other mideastern government, either. The US government does not have friends; it has associates.


I agree, but when you think about it, the U.S. and China rely heavily on each other economy wise. I really wouldn't be surprised if they were in cahoots with us more than you or I know.



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 11:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Omniscient
Well, to be honest. I've not very sure about many recent events regarding this. I haven't been on this site for months, so I just thought I'd jump in.


No problem, I was just giving you a hard time in jest because of the avatar and the Republic/Empire thing. I couldn't resist.


[edit on 11-1-2006 by 27jd]



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 11:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd
the U.S. and China rely heavily on each other economy wise. I really wouldn't be surprised if they were in cahoots with us more than you or I know.


More like the US relies on China. In cahoots? I doubt it. Think back to the days pre-9-11, Rumsfeld was making a lot of noise about the China threat. No one wanted to hear him. On that, I agreed with him.

And don't forget, China and Russia have been doing joint-military training. That's a first.



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 11:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Think back to the days pre-9-11, Rumsfeld was making a lot of noise about the China threat. No one wanted to hear him. On that, I agreed with him.

And don't forget, China and Russia have been doing joint-military training. That's a first.


I don't know, things aren't always what they seem, but you're probably right. As far as Rummy, maybe that was plan A to maintain public support for our ridiculous military spending, didn't work, then we saw plan B. Hmmmm....



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 12:05 AM
link   
I don't know, but I've been saying, since the early '90s when I was in college, that China was in its ascendancy; and that in the coming years, it would rise to become our number one enemy.

We should all keep in mind, that just because China's government does business with the US government, that doesn't mean they like us. Being the patient people they are, they're probably trying to lay a trap for us.



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 12:21 AM
link   
So what, then, are the policitcal ramifications of attacking or invading Iran? Some of my thoughts:

* Almost certain backlash in the general Islamic community over an attack on another Islamic country. Even if the attack isn't directed against Islam it will be percieved to be I think
* Oil situation becomes even more unstable, prices rise again, even more this time
* US Government comes under increasing pressure from peace factions within it's own populace
* US Government comes under increasing pressure due to inflation caused by rising oil prices
* If action is unilateral then rest of world condemns the US also
* China's ire is likely raised as they are one of the biggest oil consumers in the world and overly high oil prices will affect them (not to mention that they might be jealous that they can't also secure a cheap and easy supply of oil if they see the US invade Iran)
* Russia, hmm.. Don't know about these guys. They sell oil themselves so they probably wouldn't want to see an OPEC nation go down as that would lower the artificially inflated price of oil (inflated by OPEC) and affect their bottom line

That's just what I can think of. Though I have no sympathy for Iran, I think that if the US attacked Iran in any more than a precision, one off strike they would be doing themselves immeasurable harm. Worse, I think Iran probably knows this all too well and is hoping that the US does attack so they can look righteous to the rest of the world and increase their standing with the Islamic world. Iran have publicly stated that they want the Islam to unite (with them to lead the way) and this may just give them the opportunity to do that

If any one can think of any other affects to add to this list please feel free...



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 12:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
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...





This is worth taking another look at. It'll give you a somewhat decent idea of what Iran's capabilities are.

Another important thing to consider is that Iran is so thoroughly into Iraq, like it or not, the current carnage could double overnight.




top topics



 
0
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join