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: 27
0
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
By the way, I was talking to a friend of mine today (retired Naval officer, flew for NATO for years); I asked him his position on this Iran thing. Unequivocally, he said "diplomacy must work!"

The man knows what he's talking about.

Sure it must work.
Despite what it's government may say or do, Iran (the people not the gov.) is a very pro west nation.
(this article here does a pretty good job trying to explain why that is)
Attacking them would probably change the people's views a bit, and we can't have that!


The question is, are the NeoCons so blinde and ignorant as to fall into the same trap twice?

Why do you keep saying that?
You have been shown article after article how this is not a "NeoCon" thing yet you continue to ignore that fact. Why?




posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 11:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird

Attacking them would probably change the people's views a bit, and we can't have that!


:shk: Right. The best thing to do is to take that hope (for friendship w/the west and progress) and turn them against us for all time.

I take it you didn't even read the analysis from LewRockwell (NOT liberal).



The question is, are the NeoCons so blinde and ignorant as to fall into the same trap twice?

Why do you keep saying that?
You have been shown article after article how this is not a "NeoCon" thing yet you continue to ignore that fact. Why?


Why do I keep saying that? Hello? Who exactly do you think is in charge?

If you have to ask that....:shk:



posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 12:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Who exactly do you think is in charge?


If that's the case, I would be very interested to know how they were able to get France and Germany on board this time, and Russia to pretty much wash it's hands of Iran. That's a pretty tall feat for the neocons in a time when they are struggling so much here at home, something they were unable to do with Iraq after 9/11 when they were going strong. I know you've stated that you don't believe France and Germany are "on board", but at this point I do, and I don't think Chirac would have aimed those nuclear retaliation comments so blatantly at Iran if it didn't plan to go the distance....

Like I've stated before, to me the U.S. almost seems to be on the sidelines, thus far anyway.



posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 06:09 AM
link   
France and germany was on board until troops started lining at the boarder of Iraq. THey wanted proof which America did not provide. Then THe US Administration started spouting preemptive stikes, the UN is irrelevant, Making it sound like Iraq had something to do with 911, THe smoking gun being a mushroom cloud. The only partner that stayed was GB and they had conditions. Notice they have already said no military solution for Iran right now. Ohh thats right!! that is why they are going to push Israel the strike with military jets made in America. THen back them up in the UN with a veto.



posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd
If that's the case, I would be very interested to know how they were able to get France and Germany on board this time, and Russia to pretty much wash it's hands of Iran. That's a pretty tall feat for the neocons in a time when they are struggling so much here at home, something they were unable to do with Iraq after 9/11 when they were going strong. I know you've stated that you don't believe France and Germany are "on board", but at this point I do, and I don't think Chirac would have aimed those nuclear retaliation comments so blatantly at Iran if it didn't plan to go the distance....

Like I've stated before, to me the U.S. almost seems to be on the sidelines, thus far anyway.

Which is exactly my point.
You have European countries and even some democrats taking a harder stance on Iran than the Neo Cons, yet ECK still refuses to either see or address that and continues to put this in the hands of the Neo Cons without any real explanation why.





Originally posted by EastCoastKid
:shk: Right. The best thing to do is to take that hope (for friendship w/the west and progress) and turn them against us for all time.

I take it you didn't even read the analysis from LewRockwell (NOT liberal).


I take it you didn't read my post....

[edit on 26-1-2006 by ThatsJustWeird]



posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
(this article here does a pretty good job trying to explain why that is)
Attacking them would probably change the people's views a bit, and we can't have that!


That article says in a poll of the Iranian people, 45% favor regime change even if by foreign intervention...



posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 08:20 PM
link   
article by Patrick Clawson hmmm sounds like a real arab name to me.I know its not propaganda because it is someone from Iran tell me this. Good worK!!

Try again

Flashback" And they will greet us with flowers for liberating them from a dictator."



posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd
Like I've stated before, to me the U.S. almost seems to be on the sidelines, thus far anyway.


Ok, here's the weird thing. Most people here better sit down for this. David Brooks (NY Times) wrote an article several days ago now that was in our paper. He broke down the four groups of thought on Iran. The craziest thing is, to date, (at and least publicly), the postition I most agree with is Bush's position. ( And I emphasize his current position on this.) It's the diplomacy route. Not bombs. I guess that would be the ever unpopular Cheney/Rummy route. Unfortunately, that ain't sellin too well right now. Bush's route is to let the EU-3 do its work, along with the IAEA. My friend who used to fly attack acft for NATO even said we gotta go the diplomacy route on this. It's way more complicated than Iraq.

Anyway.. I'd link that article, but I ain't paying the NY Times for no Brooks article, even as good as it was.



posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
You have European countries and even some democrats taking a harder stance on Iran than the Neo Cons, yet ECK still refuses to either see or address that and continues to put this in the hands of the Neo Cons without any real explanation why.


What European countries? Isreal? That's in the mideast.

Do you even understand that NeoCons are both Democrat and Republican? It doesn't really sound like it.

Trust me, buddy, the this has NeoCon all over it.

Why don't you tell us why you're foaming at the mouth defending them? Are you a NeoCon? If so, go take a bath.


[
I take it you didn't read my post....


I absolutely read your post. But you should really admit, you didn't bother to read the article I provided. You absolutely don't understand who wrote it. If you did, that would make a big difference in your thinking.

Good luck with that....btw..



posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 09:38 PM
link   
I know I am kind of late in the thread but reading the last few post I have to said that the only main allied to the US in a possible confrontation with Iran will be Israel.

Israel has been preparing for this since 2005 while stock piling military hardware thanks to the US.

I don't know if you people have been following what has been going on since Cheney announce last year that "Iran was at the top of the list for US attacks" in his war on terror since then Israel has been buying like crazy from US.

The excused is that Israel is feeling threatened by the bold comments of the new leader of Iran.

And with or without the help of the US or the UN they will attack Iran nuclear plants and will leave the diplomatic mess to the rest of the nations and US to clean up.

Does anybody has any more information of the massive buildup of military weapons by Israel.

I will not leave out the possibility that Iran indeed will target Israel and the gulf in case of a US attack.



posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 09:51 PM
link   
I am not aware of any Israeli "build-up" as you say, Marg. Do you have any info ont that? You got any hot sources, bein with a long-time Marine & all?

Nice avatar, btw...



posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
What European countries? Isreal? That's in the mideast.

www.timesonline.co.uk...
www.alertnet.org...
news.scotsman.com...
etc.


Do you even understand that NeoCons are both Democrat and Republican? It doesn't really sound like it.

Trust me, buddy, the this has NeoCon all over it.

You said that the NeoCons are falling for the same stuff again.
I said and showed you that nonNeoCon democrats and nonNeoCon European countries also support the UN not sitting on it's hands concerning Iran.

You have yet to show me how this is just a NeoCon thing.


Why don't you tell us why you're foaming at the mouth defending them? Are you a NeoCon? If so, go take a bath.

wtf?
Defending them?
How? By saying it's more than a NeoCon thing?



I absolutely read your post.

Then how could you have so horribly misquoted me?

Or maybe I'm reading your post wrong


Right. The best thing to do is to take that hope (for friendship w/the west and progress) and turn them against us for all time.

Please explain what you're talking about....
I know you're trying to be sarcastic since I said nothing like that, what are you talking about?



But you should really admit, you didn't bother to read the article I provided. You absolutely don't understand who wrote it. If you did, that would make a big difference in your thinking.

Good luck with that....btw..

I have read the article.
What about it?

That's his opinion of what's going to happen. I don't know why he completely ignores the UN and EU (and even Isreal), and he doesn't really present any facts to back up his statements...but that's his opinion and he's entitled to it.
Why do you want me to take just one man's opinion as gospel so bad? Just because you agree with him?
lol



posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 10:30 PM
link   
< im officially naming this the ThatsJustWierd symbol because every conversation im in this is usually in at least one of his responses per page.

id like to see info on the israel build up on weapons. thanks

also eastcoastkid your wasting your time, anytime you say anything that makes the US or its government look bad, suddenly your speaking a language TJW has never heard before, its better you just not bother.

it would be interesting to know what european nations are fully ready to actually bomb or send it troops. not just sanction or be diplomatic. no country is going to sit on there hands...that doesnt mean they have to go in with guns blazing.
for thatsjustwierd what i just meant in that was european nations dont have to fight in order to be active in the iran situation. just so there is no confusion or


[edit on 26-1-2006 by grimreaper797]



posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 10:42 PM
link   
This **
** is by far the best smiley here on ATS (ATS not BTS) and MUST be used at all times.


(the second best is....
)



posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
You have yet to show me how this is just a NeoCon thing.


If you can sit there and say that, then you havn't been paying attention. This whole democratize the middleeast thing is pure NeoCon ( uh.. both left and right, DLC anyone?
)

It sure ain't Republican. We don't do nation building. That's a left-wing idea. But then again, NeoCons are just psychotic and domineering liberals who got run out of the Democratic party for being complete pie in the sky idiots. Since Bush came to power, they have completely infiltrated and taken over the Republican party. They run puppet Dubya through the PNAC agenda. Check it out sometime. It would defiitely be worth your while.


Why don't you tell us why you're foaming at the mouth defending them? Are you a NeoCon? If so, go take a bath.
wtf?
Defending them?
How? By saying it's more than a NeoCon thing?



Tad bit sensitive are we?


If the shoe fits..


Right. The best thing to do is to take that hope (for friendship w/the west and progress) and turn them against us for all time.

Please explain what you're talking about....
I know you're trying to be sarcastic since I said nothing like that, what are you talking about?

Attacking Iran would only send those freedom loving young Iranians right back into the Islamists hands. Do you really think that would be a wise course fo action? Can you not see the larger picture?


I have read the article.
What about it?

That's his opinion of what's going to happen. I don't know why he completely ignores the UN and EU (and even Isreal), and he doesn't really present any facts to back up his statements...but that's his opinion and he's entitled to it.
Why do you want me to take just one man's opinion as gospel so bad? Just because you agree with him?
lol


I don't think you did read that article. You havn't shown an ounce of understanding of it, or even commented on it. Why would I think you read it, much less given his position a fair shake, or an ounce of debate? You simply reacted like a teenager would. spit spit spit..


Why don't you talk to me about what the article said? Maybe its a bit beyond your comprehension? I mean, what else am I to think? You havn't offered anything remotely equal to his argument.



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 12:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Tad bit sensitive are we?


If the shoe fits..

Nope, not at all. It's just that reading over my post again and seeing that nothing I said supported them...I'm wondering how you could have possibly came to that conclusion.


Attacking Iran would only send those freedom loving young Iranians right back into the Islamists hands. Do you really think that would be a wise course fo action? Can you not see the larger picture?

More proof you didn't read my post.
I said THAT'S the reason why DIPLOMACY must work.

Perhaps my simple words were too much for you to comprehend. I apologize and will remember who I'm talking to next time



I don't think you did read that article. You havn't shown an ounce of understanding of it, or even commented on it. Why would I think you read it, much less given his position a fair shake, or an ounce of debate? You simply reacted like a teenager would. spit spit spit..


Why don't you talk to me about what the article said? Maybe its a bit beyond your comprehension? I mean, what else am I to think? You havn't offered anything remotely equal to his argument.

1. Maybe I'm missing something here. Why should I respond to this man's opinion over the hundreds of other opinions on both sides of the issue that have been written.
I've read the article, I've read similar articles, I've read articles saying the opposite.
Do you want me to respond to each article?

2. What's this "spit spit spit" stuff? Not once did I ever react negatively to his article.

3. Since you insist and apparently the world will end if I don't talk about the article, let's take a look at it (I still would like to know why I should respond to this over the other hundreds of article):

In contrast to its official concern over Iran's nuclear developments, the Bush Administration says not a word publicly about the first development, strictly peaceful, which would create new international demand for euros in place of dollars. This could break apart the lock-step decision of OPEC governments to accept payment only in dollars, a possibility welcomed by the Islamic press.

lol, is he surprised?
What is the Bush admin supposed to say? "Oh yeah, we're scared out of our minds!"


An unprovoked American attack on Iran will instantly and permanently de-legitimize every American client state in the Middle East. If the United States bombs Iran, the Bush Administration might as well send that "Mission Accomplished" banner to Al Qaeda headquarters.

From here on out, I can't figure out why he completely ignores the UN and EU. Has he not been paying attention?


The day the bombs begin to fall, the mullahs will join ranks with teenagers in the streets of Tehran. Dr. Ahmadinejad will become as politically immune from public criticism as Mr. Bush was on September 12, 2001.

As stated above, this is why the diplomatic route is best


The day after the bombs begin to fall on Iran, clandestine weapons will begin to flow westward across the Iran-Iraq border. The Shi'ites in Iraq will instantly become the long-lost cousins of the Sunni resistance movement. There is an old Muslim saying,

"My brother and I against our cousin. We and our cousin against the world."

The United States' troops on the ground will discover the deadly power of that alliance. All co-operation from the Shi'ites will cease. There will be a unified anti-American front south of the Kurdish region.

Or not.
Sure A and B could very well happen, but C could cause D and E to happen. It's impossible to say that for sure.


President Bush can issue warnings. The Administration can talk tough. But what is the point?

What about the all the warnings coming from the UN?
Don't they count for something?


If it is not a bluff, and the bombs fall, the United States' client regimes in the Middle East are as good as gone.

We will then be driven out of Iraq. This message will be fully understood by every Muslim in the street. The Great Satan can be whipped. No better reason exists to start looking for a local client to whip.

Easier said than done. In reality what would happen next would be 100x complicated than he's predicting here. There are so many factors that could come into play that it's impossible to predict what will happen next. Especially since any action would be UN sanctioned.


Iran cannot be occupied by U.S. troops.

Not one country has ever talked about invading Iran. Not one country has prepared to invade Iran. An invasion like that would take months of buildup.


So, the enforcement of any anti-nuclear technology development program is a bluff.

Is he trying to give us more proof the UN is useless?



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 08:06 AM
link   
thank you TJW, i was about to be disappointed hahaha.

yea im not bothering to read the guys article, its just his opinion. i can get enough opinions as it is, doesnt mean hes any more right then when bushes opinion was stated about iraq. simply an opinion, and really that isnt a source to use as far as proving anything. id rather read a news article then see your opinions on it instead of some guy thats not even on the board. this was for everyone.

news articles then interpretations is what we want, not other peoples opinions to back us up.



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
it would be interesting to know what european nations are fully ready to actually bomb or send it troops


It would be very interesting to know of any nations that are fully ready to bomb or send troops. Right now this is all just speculation amongst us.



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 11:25 AM
link   
Looking at the title of this thread again...
"US will invade Iran in '06"
Like Titor's civil war in '05, this is highly unlikely. Could we get a timer for this one too?



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 12:22 PM
link   
I'd love to know where certain people here get the idea that 'Europe' now has as hard an attitude as the US and Israel about Iran.

We don't.
We are not itching for a new ME war with Iran over this matter.

We have some 'concerns' about their nuclear program (mostly cos we think 'you know who' and maybe a friend is set to use them as an excuse for launching a series of attacks and another disastrous ME war) which 'we' will no doubt be abused, bullied and harangued into offering some sort of 'support' for (and no doubt cop some of the financial penalty and fall out from).

We are quite prepared to talk and pursue the matter without the threats (which we believe are unhelpful and are deliberately being used to undermine the dialogue in any case).

The peoples of Europe are almost unanimously against the Iraqi war, what sort of logic imagines 'we' are in any way supportive of this obvious move to crank up the hysteria for an attack on Iran?

One fantasy set of WMDs was bad enough but these imaginary nuclear weapons are not fooling anyone.

This is purely the old idea of Imperial America moving to stomp on anyone who dares defy her and who tries to act independently.
Iran verses the USA? Please.

Iran verses Israel (and her nuclear stockpile)? Please.


No doubt other countries will be addressed later (the southern Americas look likely with uppity democrats daring to assert policies relevant and beneficial to their own local peoples.
Watch out Venezuela, Bolivia, Brazil etc etc).

But there is no way the European public is going to help the present American right-wing government and their supporters in that counter-productive (though they are utterly blind to it) madness......

....and anyone who is trying to claim otherwise is either lying or has no clue about what they are talking about.

Just so you know, if you see any be assured; the demos you'll see in Europe are anti-war, not pro an attack on Iran.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join