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: 16
0
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 04:42 PM
link   
ok just answer me this, if we were to beef up home security to any one coming in (pretty much shut our borders for awhile. how would we get nuked by iran directly? if you say we cant then WE dont have to worry about getting nuked like you are talking about.

israel, yea they will have a problem. but they always have, no matter what. if your prepared to take land, and say its yours, when everyone around you says leave or else, and you stay....thats your own fault. if the united nations want to give them land, give them THEIR LAND, not the middle east. ive talked to iranian people before, they say the same thing. we have no problem with a jewish state, just not there. im sure something could be worked out where there could be another jewish state made and both people could make pilgrimages to the 'now' israel when they wanted to. you act as though the israelis are the natives there.

if your living in a neiborhood, come in a take the land because another city says its ok, then everyone on the block points guns at you saying leave, you leave. they dont want you there and just because foreign people said it was ok doesnt mean its ok to the native people. if europe and russia want them to have their own nation, give them their land. you want the religious wars to stop that seems like the only peaceful way. why do you feel the jewish people were entitled to israel anyway?




posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 04:46 PM
link   

ok just answer me this, if we were to beef up home security to any one coming in (pretty much shut our borders for awhile. how would we get nuked by iran directly? if you say we cant then WE dont have to worry about getting nuked like you are talking about.


Can anyone say appeasement, and totally unrealistic scenario? Where's that quote by Winston Churchill, hold on, I’ll get back to you on that.



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
ok just answer me this, if we were to beef up home security to any one coming in (pretty much shut our borders for awhile. how would we get nuked by iran directly? if you say we cant then WE dont have to worry about getting nuked like you are talking about.


Oh...my...god! Have you really not read anything I've posted over the past couple pages?! At all?! Israel's nukes are not just pointed at Iran, but Russia as well. In a serious nuclear conflict in which Israel faces destruction, they WILL nuke Russia for supporting Iran. Russia WILL nuke us for supporting Israel. We can shut our borders all we want, ain't gonna stop crap.





[edit on 12-1-2006 by 27jd]



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
ok just answer me this, if we were to beef up home security to any one coming in (pretty much shut our borders for awhile.) how would we get nuked by iran directly?


DIRECTLY, that mean by iran. iran isnt russia. this is russias choice and we should be discussing the manner with russia should this occur.

its israel decided to nuke russia, we'd immediately back out of backing them and we'd let russia nuke them. you think we are going to back them with the fact they are nuking people? nope we'd back out and say not our allies anymore, do to them as you please. if we didnt then its our fault for backing a country we never should have backed to begin with.


[edit on 12-1-2006 by grimreaper797]



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
iran cant nuke us, russia can. so we should be talking to russia about this...not iran.


It's so not that simple. First, Russia and the U.S. have systems in place to immediately launch retaliatory strikes at each other in the event of any kind of nuclear attack on either. Even a meteor exploding close enough in the atmosphere could trigger that system. Second, if Israel nukes Russia, they are not gonna be in a mood to talk it out even if that were possible. They will hit us, and we'll hit them back. That's what I think alot of you guys aren't taking into consideration, it's a game of nuclear dominos.



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 06:18 PM
link   
im talkin about NOW. not when they start nuking eachother. it should already be in talk to russia as to should israel make any attack then we drop them like an egg and like russia nuke them should they nuke russia...without any action on our side. if iran nukes israel and israel nuked just iran, then thats end of story.

straight out we shouldnt be backing israel. we are making a mistake doing so. you want terror attacks to go way down, move the jewish state out of the middle east. you can complain all you want but do that and iran will stop attacking israel and probably the US as well because then we arent backing their enemies anymore since israel is not their enemies now. they want israel out of their part of the world, all of them do. a bunch of countries can give away their land, not other peoples land. thats the roots. grab it at the roots and it will go away.



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 06:38 PM
link   
Go back and actually read some of the links I provided, K? We're going round and round here. Please read up.



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 07:10 PM
link   
first link i disregaurded once it said "and this could throw off stability in the middle east" like there is any. just saying that makes me laugh at the article.

your second article which i believe you are refering me to. the one about world nuclear exchange. first all i see is mostly aggresive and pre-emptive strikes coming out of israel...not retalitory. terrorist throw a nuke down in israel and it nukes half of the eastern hemisphere? yea talk about a chain reaction. and it nukes russia just for backing arab nations, great. now i know why i dont feel safe with israel having nukes, they are one attack away from causing world war 3.

after rereading your links you have further reinforced my belief that israel NEEDS to have their nukes taken away.

i especially like how scenario 3 goes. israel bombs irans nuclear reactors, so they bomb back with same type of weapons maybe so chemical or bio, then israel goes nuclear on them. after reading them now i definately want israels nukes gone....and now. thank you for this information and letting me realize they are even a bigger threat then i thought.

so as it stands, the nuclear wars involving israel either start with israel attacking first with weapons, then nuclear weapons. or israel getting hit by an unknown group of terrorist, maybe rouge, then israel nukes a bunch of countries. why does it sound like ISRAEL is the itchy trigger happy physco, not iran?



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 08:32 PM
link   
Here are some links and my thoughts on them:

Iran makes some good points on the hyprocrisy issue. However, Ahmadinejad isn't doing his country any favors by shooting off at the mouth like he is.



The Bush Who Cried Wolf
By Robert Dreyfuss
TomPaine.com

Thursday 12 January 2006

The deteriorating international crisis over Iran is a direct result of the Bush's administration's ham-handed and mendacious Iraq policy.

Under normal circumstances - that is, under any previous US administration - the battle over Iran's pugnacious effort in pursuit of nuclear technology would be amenable to a diplomatic solution. But, by insisting on a national security strategy of pre-emptive war, by illegally and unilaterally invading Iraq on false pretenses, and by hinting that the White House would tolerate an Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear plants, President Bush and Vice President Cheney have made a successful diplomatic resolution of the Iran crisis nearly impossible.

Speaking yesterday at the Council for National Policy, Larry Wilkerson - the former top aide to Secretary of State Colin Powell who caused a stir last fall when he accused Cheney and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld of operating a "cabal" - said that it is likely that Pentagon officials are polishing contingency plans for a strike against Iran. Iran, said Wilkerson, is the "principal winner" from the war in Iraq. As a result of the power of the Shiite religious forces in Iraq, he said, the Iranians "own the south" of Iraq. Wilkerson insisted that the United States ought to "talk to the people who really matter in Iran" - i.e., to the ayatollahs. But he said that US policy has failed so utterly that the door to negotiations with Iran is virtually closed. "When you close the door to diplomacy, you have no other option but to rely on military power," he said. "I hope to hell we don't have to use it."
www.truthout.org...






US and EU Want Security Council to Tackle Iran
Reuters
Thursday 12 January 2006

Berlin - The United States and the European Union's three biggest powers said on Thursday talks with Iran had reached a dead end and agreed it should be brought before the UN Security Council over its nuclear program.

Accusing Tehran of turning its back on the international community, they said it had consistently breached its commitments and failed to show the world its nuclear activities were peaceful.
www.truthout.org...





Iran Defiant As Sanctions From West Likely

By NASSER KARIMI, Associated Press Writer
Wed Jan 11, 5:28 PM ET

TEHRAN, Iran - The U.S. and Britain said Wednesday that Western countries will likely seek Iran's referral to the U.N. Security Council after it restarted nuclear activity. Iran's president said his country would not be bullied and would push ahead with the program.
news.yahoo.com...



I expect the rhetoric and accusations to grow more intense with the elections upcoming. Always keep that in mind.

I was reading some analysis today that claims Iran is actually more like 5 yrs away from being able to build a bomb.



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 08:45 PM
link   
Would people feel the same if Irans president had said the USA needs to be wiped off the face of the Earth instead of saying Israel ?

We all can imagine who will be next after Israel.

You dance with the Devil you eventually get to meet the Piper.



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 08:47 PM
link   
As such, ECK, will we all just sit around [2-5 years] and wait till Iran has nuclear weapons, or should something be done beforehand?

See, to me, despite others beliefs and stances on the Iraq war or the war on terrorism, the Iranian's acquiring nuclear weapons capabilities is an issue, and an issue that needs to be addressed sooner rather than later.





seekerof

[edit on 12-1-2006 by Seekerof]



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by NumberCruncher
Would people feel the same if Irans president had said the USA needs to be wiped off the face of the Earth instead of saying Israel ?

We all can imagine who will be next after Israel.

You dance with the Devil you eventually get to meet the Piper.


unfortunately for your arguement the only reason they would ever possbily say that is because we are backing a country which they hate. and the reason they hate them is because there land was given away by foreign countries that they cant fight against. had the jewish state been started in europe instead of the middle east, none of the israel conflicts would be happening. it would be a much different world over there.



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
As such, ECK, will we all just sit around [2-5 years] and wait till Iran has nuclear weapons, or should something be done beforehand?


I merely stated the opinion of the analysis I read. Before I make any judgements that are worthy of print, on this issue, I will study it inside out.


the Iranian's acquiring nuclear weapons capabilities is an issue, and issue that needs to be addressed sooner than later.


Well then, we agree. That is why I started this thread - to discuss and analyze it with the ATS community. Looks like there is quite a bit of interest in it.







seekerof

[edit on 12-1-2006 by Seekerof]



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
after rereading your links you have further reinforced my belief that israel NEEDS to have their nukes taken away.


And I agree with you.



i especially like how scenario 3 goes. israel bombs irans nuclear reactors, so they bomb back with same type of weapons maybe so chemical or bio, then israel goes nuclear on them. after reading them now i definately want israels nukes gone....and now. thank you for this information and letting me realize they are even a bigger threat then i thought.


I don't like how any of the scenarios go.



so as it stands, the nuclear wars involving israel either start with israel attacking first with weapons, then nuclear weapons. or israel getting hit by an unknown group of terrorist, maybe rouge, then israel nukes a bunch of countries. why does it sound like ISRAEL is the itchy trigger happy physco, not iran?


They are, which is exactly why we have been fighting their wars for them. They have us by the balls in that they will hit Russia if the crap hits the fan, so we do everything in our power to make sure it doesn't, for everybody's sake. Nuclear proliferation is great, don't ya think? Do you really think a nuclear Iran will make Israel's trigger finger any less itchy? The international community needs to stop Iran from getting nukes, then put the pressure on Israel to give up theirs. After reading those scenarios, do you really think Iran getting nukes is going to help matters? It will make them much, much worse. If it happens, we could very well find ourselves in the nightmare scenario we have feared our entire lives, well maybe not you, since your still in high school you grew up after the cold war supposedly ended. But just imagine full scale nuclear war, waiting for the missiles to hit your city, waiting to die. Better hope you're near a blast site so it's quick. I've felt the effects small focused doses of radiation have on the body, it's not fun. I could only imagine what a huge dose would feel like.



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd
They are, which is exactly why we have been fighting their wars for them.

How many wars has Israel been in?
How many of those wars has the US fought on behalf of Israel?





seekerof



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 09:13 PM
link   
when i said i especially like how this scenario goes i was being sarcastic (i shouldnt have been since this is the internet and you cant hear the intent in the voice)

anyway weve had pleanty of time to take away israels nukes, so why havent we pressured them more? face it, we dont care if israel has nukes, in fact we want them trigger happy. this is because its a great position for us if we get nuked. we get nuked and a war starts, israel can start throwing them all over, which work great for us, but demolishs the entire middle east and eventually the entire eastern hemisphere.

i live in new jersey, so if nukes go to US i know im dead soon as i heard nukes were coming id know i was done. most the people in the northeast would know the same. as much as id like to stop that from happening, israel will not be disarmed because US doesnt care to do so and will lead us to a nuclear war. its on us the people to take our government back and actually force them to deal with israel the way they did with israel.



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
How many wars has Israel been in?
How many of those wars has the US fought on behalf of Israel?


You're right, I guess I was referring to recent times where we've asked them to sit conflicts out, like when Iraq launched scuds at Israel for instance.

I don't see the U.S. leaving the Iran issue up to Israel, do you?



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd
I don't see the U.S. leaving the Iran issue up to Israel, do you?


if they do im moving to alaska. maybe i wont be effected as much by the massive amounts of raditation in the main land of the US and rest of the world.



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd
I don't see the U.S. leaving the Iran issue up to Israel, do you?

As I have indicated over the months, no.
With the recent analysis given over Iran's underground and spread out enrichment facilities, an air strike by either the US, the EU, or Israel will be damaging, but will not destroy enough of those facilities to hamper Iran's continued pursuance of nuclear weapons. Invasion is out of the question at this point in time, as well.

So as par, the whole Iranian issue rests with the UN and IAEA, and I am sure that will prove quite fruitful....not.
I predicted it just a few short days ago, that Iran will indeed acquire nuclear weapons. Time will only tell if my thinking on this is wrong.





seekerof



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
when i said i especially like how this scenario goes i was being sarcastic (i shouldnt have been since this is the internet and you cant hear the intent in the voice)


I see.



anyway weve had pleanty of time to take away israels nukes, so why havent we pressured them more? face it, we dont care if israel has nukes, in fact we want them trigger happy. this is because its a great position for us if we get nuked. we get nuked and a war starts, israel can start throwing them all over, which work great for us, but demolishs the entire middle east and eventually the entire eastern hemisphere.


We by far don't need Israel to do that, we could do a bang up job of ending civilization everywhere all by ourselves. We don't want Israel to have an itchy trigger finger, because nuclear war is something that is greatly in our interest to avoid.



i live in new jersey, so if nukes go to US i know im dead soon as i heard nukes were coming id know i was done. most the people in the northeast would know the same. as much as id like to stop that from happening, israel will not be disarmed because US doesnt care to do so and will lead us to a nuclear war. its on us the people to take our government back and actually force them to deal with israel the way they did with israel.


I cannot stress enough that I agree with you on that, but first we need to stop Iran from getting them, so that the goal of a non-nuclear Israel is actually within the realm of possibilities. Are you willing to die for Iran?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join