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: 29
0
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 28 2006 @ 10:40 AM
link   
Just once I wish this administration would come clean with the American people over why its really rattling those sabers at Iran. BushCo. doesn't care about supposed WMD. That's just balogny for America's consumption and fear. Its all about Iran's new oil bourse coming online and the fear that they will dump the dollar and go with the euro (for trade) as Saddam did in 2000. THAT's your real WMD. If they go with the euro and forsake the dollar (petrodollar), you can kiss America's economic hegemony goodbye. Here's a little article detailing the absurdity and hypcorisy of all this..



Iran’s nuclear issue becomes a hornet’s nest

By Linda Heard
Online Journal Contributing Writer




Jan 27, 2006, 21:54

Email this article
Printer friendly page


While there are few nations in our region that welcome a nuclear Iran, it must be stressed that Iran has the “inalienable right” as a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes. Iran says that’s exactly what it’s doing. The US, Israel and Europe suspect the Iranian government of hiding a weapons program, but they have absolutely no proof to back up these claims. The question is why should we believe the West over Iran, bearing in mind the intelligence fiasco vis-à-vis Iraq and the terrible consequences emanating from that?

Iran and Syria, which appear to be showing a united front in adversity, are currently being demonized and threatened. Just to be clear, these countries, which Israeli Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz refers to as the “Outcasts Alliance," are not the bullies here. Yet, just as it did with Iraq, the West works hard at painting itself as the “good guy” fighting evil influences and just as happened with Iraq, Western publics merrily lap up the propaganda uncritically.

Almost every US government official refers to Iran’s deceit and urges Iran to live up to its international responsibilities under the NPT. Sounds good until one realizes just how laced with hypocrisy these statements really are.

Israel, India and Pakistan are all nuclear powers that haven’t bothered to ratify the NPT and consider IAEA inspections a violation of their sovereignty, yet they are in no danger of being dragged before the UN Security Council to be rapped over the knuckles, slapped with sanctions or ultimately bombed.

At the same time, North Korea, which admits to having a nuclear weapons program and a long-range missile delivery system, is being handled with kid gloves. So what kind of message does this send to Iran, which has thus far played by the rules?
onlinejournal.com...




posted on Jan, 28 2006 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
- Yet it never seems to enter the equation that if they were as crazy as you claim they would have launched their missiles with the WMDs they already have, long ago.

They have not.


That's not to say they won't by any means. Besides, chem and bio weapons are not an iron clad a guarantee of destroying Israel, there would be many casualties yes, but also many survivors. Iran would be destroyed, without the knowledge Israel would as well. It could very well survive. Not so with nuclear weapons. Iran has been speaking of the 'death by fire' of it's enemies for a long time, I don't want to see them get a match.



Like I said, the concept of a genuinely suicidal national leadership (which for all these years has shown no inkling of its alleged nature despite already being armed with WMDs and the means to deliver them for many years) requires so many people to be of a like mind and willing to take that insane step that serious consideration of it as a likely possibility is IMO itself insane.


To you it's insane, it is to me as well, it's a concept we can't grasp because we don't believe in fairy tales like they do. My worry is that I don't know what really goes through such minds, I suspect you don't either. You're assuming they think rationally like you, I'm not willing to make such an assumption with such grave consequences for being wrong.



- I agree.
I also find it incredible and deeply worrying that Bush consults with evangelical fundamentalist 'pastors' on policy.


Please! Bush is about as religious as my left ball, and you for sure won't see it sitting in church on Sunday. They played the religious people of America like a video game. Any consultation with pastors is purely for show, and Bush is sitting there thinking of money as their words go in one ear and out the other.





- Why not raise it?
Are you really saying that 'those crazy fundamentalist Islamics' has not been a part of all this at all, anywhere?


Of course it is, but not in an attempt to paint the Iranians as a whole as less human. It's to call out it's leaders for what they really are, 'crazy fundamentalist Islamics'. Unlike Bush, they're not pretending to be something they're not to win votes. Bush prays to money, and only money.



- But that is an entirely different concept than the present one of the 'no nuclear weapons Iran' starting that kind of nuclear exchange.


I'm having a hard time understanding what you mean by this, maybe it's just too early in the morning, lol. Please elaborate if you would.



posted on Jan, 28 2006 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd
That's not to say they won't by any means.


- Paranoia is a wonderful thing eh? Ok, fantasize away....but that is all it is, a fantasy and a game of imagine anything you like and want to.


Besides, chem and bio weapons are not an iron clad a guarantee of destroying Israel, there would be many casualties yes, but also many survivors. Iran would be destroyed, without the knowledge Israel would as well. It could very well survive. Not so with nuclear weapons.


- Sorry but this is absurd nonsense.

The size of strike that would be 'needed' to utterly completely destroy Israel would be enormous and therefore so visible in it's preparation and execution that the idea they could sneakily do it is ridiculous.

....oh, and they don't have any nuclear weapons.
It's Israel that actually does remember?

(.....and if you want to persist with this idea the the evidence for this stockpile is?)


Iran has been speaking of the 'death by fire' of it's enemies for a long time, I don't want to see them get a match.


- Personally I'd rather people weren't running around happily talking about torching other peoples' countries and murdering their populations in huge numbers on mere silly unfounded guessing games.


To you it's insane, it is to me as well, it's a concept we can't grasp because we don't believe in fairy tales like they do.


- Ah, back to the 'they're all completely unreasonable and insane' tack, eh?

That's actually a pretty crazy stance too you know.


My worry is that I don't know what really goes through such minds, I suspect you don't either. You're assuming they think rationally like you, I'm not willing to make such an assumption with such grave consequences for being wrong.


- Ah well.
The world must be a horrible and completely scary place for you then.

Afterall how can you possibly not know they're not all out to 'get' you if you just prepared to go with such paranoia and are not prepared to let history and peoples' past behaviour be any sort of guide?


Please! Bush is about as religious as my left ball, and you for sure won't see it sitting in church on Sunday. They played the religious people of America like a video game. Any consultation with pastors is purely for show, and Bush is sitting there thinking of money as their words go in one ear and out the other.


- Ok, that's your belief. Fair enough, but.....

I'd say Bush's religiousness is about as significant in this as the Iranian President's.

I do not attach any relevance to his comments about the USA, the continuing existance of Israel or the extent of the Holocaust either.
They are plainly just stock in trade propaganda (which have been seen and heard for years from various personalities there).
You seem to prefer to think only one personalities' religious beliefs and propaganda signifies any intent (despite the track records).


Of course it is


- Then it is fair to mention it afterall, hmmm?


but not in an attempt to paint the Iranians as a whole as less human. It's to call out it's leaders for what they really are, 'crazy fundamentalist Islamics'.


- I'd say it's a very fine line between 'less than human' and 'bunch of insane fundamentalists with inhuman values'.


Unlike Bush, they're not pretending to be something they're not to win votes.


- Er, I think you'll find they have elections and do care about winning votes.


Bush prays to money, and only money.


- I'll not argue with that........so how come the whole point about Iranian and the ME resources in general seem to miss out in your argument?


I'm having a hard time understanding what you mean by this, maybe it's just too early in the morning, lol. Please elaborate if you would.


- I'm saying that these lurid and fanciful claims of an enormously powerful and nuclear armed Iran (which I'll say again there is not one shred of evidence for) are a vast way off of the reality of that country.
They would be no walkover to invade but they are not such a 'power' as to be able to spark a global nuclear war.

They could not move first (cos they have no nuclear weapons anyway) and nor do they have a stockpile sufficient to ensure such damage that others would be drawn in.

The only ME country that matches that criteria is Israel, actually.
But for some reason they get a 'bye' on the matter of nuclear weapons and regional destabilisation.......it's the other guy, right?

[edit on 28-1-2006 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 10:48 PM
link   
Good find ECK ...


I too am pretty disgusted with all the hogwash and lies..



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 05:59 PM
link   
As the realization of nuclear weapons grew near, Einstein looked beyond the current war to future problems that such weapons could bring. He wrote to physicist Niels Bohr in December 1944, "when the war is over, then there will be in all countries a pursuit of secret war preparations with technological means which will lead inevitably to preventative wars and to destruction even more terrible than the present destruction of life." (Clark, pg. 698).


Old Einstein was one smart cookie.



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 10:58 PM
link   
I agree with the writer of this article. It's amazing how many people in this country are still so deceived by this administration. With our access to technology, it's scary and its sad that so many people are so in the dark.



Rank Ignorance Reigns

by Paul Craig Roberts
In keeping with its established role as purveyor of disinformation, Fox "News" talking head Brit Hume misreported Fox's own poll. On Special Report on Jan. 26, Hume said that 51 percent of Americans "would now support" air strikes on Iran. What the poll found is that if diplomacy fails, 51 percent would support air strikes [.pdf].

Can we be optimistic and assume that the American public would not regard an orchestrated failure by the Bush administration as a true diplomatic failure? Alas, we cannot expect too much from a population in thrall to disinformation.
www.antiwar.com...



posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 12:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by UnconciousSelf
As the realization of nuclear weapons grew near, Einstein looked beyond the current war to future problems that such weapons could bring. He wrote to physicist Niels Bohr in December 1944, "when the war is over, then there will be in all countries a pursuit of secret war preparations with technological means which will lead inevitably to preventative wars and to destruction even more terrible than the present destruction of life." (Clark, pg. 698).


Old Einstein was one smart cookie.


I wonder what Einstein's position would have been in regards to every nation having nuclear weapons. I highly doubt his prediction would have been a world of peace and harmony. It's gonna be like a room full of people who hate each other, and everybody's gonna have a gun to somebody else's head.



posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 12:56 AM
link   
TRANSCRIPT: www.memritv.org...
VIDEO: www.memritv.org... [Search for clip #1003]

Iranian affairs specialist Ali Nourizadeh, interviewed on Abu Dhabi TV on December 24, 2005 reports that Ahmadinejad is organizing suicide bombers for Iraq resistance.



We must not forget that Ahmadinejad is a man who financed the establishment of a suicide unit in Iran. Two weeks ago, several Revolutionary Guards commanders convened, and now there are more than a thousand volunteers for suicide operations in Iraq, in Arab countries in the Persian Gulf and in other regions.

Isn't it interesting that Sharon pulled out of the West Bank and then Hamas wins the popular vote with their first agenda being the creation of an army?

None of this was planned, of course, it just sort of happened. Pike never met Mazzini. No WW3 was planned. Go back to sleep.

Anyway, I thought this was an interesting. 1000 suicide bombers provided by Ahmadinejad. Can you imagine a more perfectly contrived scenario for US action in Iran in 2006?



posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 12:57 AM
link   
Einstein probably supported (like Reagan and Eisenhower) complete disarmament, putting nuclear power/uses into the hands of the UN for world-wide regulation.



posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 01:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Einstein probably supported (like Reagan and Eisenhower) complete disarmament, putting nuclear power/uses into the hands of the UN for world-wide regulation.


Add me to that list as well. It's a shame we've strayed, and continue to stray so far from that goal. If Iran obtains nukes, several other countries will be sure to follow. I wish I had an escape pod, and another oxygen rich planet to take my family to.



posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 07:49 AM
link   
A thousand suicide bombers huh?

Doesnt do much for our idea of conventional warfare. I like to see strategic strikes that minimize civilian casualties, as I am sure most of us do. This is the difference between tech now and the tech of, say, WWII. When faced with this sort of situation it seems more logical to just sack the whole place Roman style, you know? I really wish this stuff werent so.

How long till we colonize Mars again? I want off...



posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
I agree with the writer of this article. It's amazing how many people in this country are still so deceived by this administration. With our access to technology, it's scary and its sad that so many people are so in the dark.

What about other countries? Are the neocons in charge there as well?


Iran to be reported to the UN

How is that possible?


The five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council -- the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China -- along with Germany, agreed Monday night to report Iran to the Security Council over its nuclear program.


You mean Russia and China agreed to this? But, ECK suggests that the U.S. is in this alone.
And he's getting his info from antiwar.com, the pinnacle of unbiased news, how dare someone else suggest the UN is in on this!



posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
You mean Russia and China agreed to this? But, ECK suggests that the U.S. is in this alone.
And he's getting his info from antiwar.com, the pinnacle of unbiased news, how dare someone else suggest the UN is in on this!


- Er, by any reasonable reckoning you'll find that neither Russia, China nor 'Europe' are as belligerent over this as the USA (or Israel).

......which is odd considering how those imagined Iranian missile launched nuclear weapons would be within range of Russia, China and Europe, no?

Here's what the BBC had to say today (hardly an anti-war outlet) -


Iran has warned it will resume suspended nuclear activities and halt surprise UN inspections if it is referred to the UN Security Council.
The warning, issued by chief Iranian nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani, follows an agreement by six key powers to report Tehran to the council.

Top officials from two of the powers, Russia and China, will travel to Iran to urge it to back down in the row.

Iran denies Western claims that it is aiming to build nuclear weapons.


- The report goes on


Mr Larijani said: "In case of referral... we have to start all nuclear work that has been voluntarily suspended and stop implementation of the Additional Protocol."

The protocol, part of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty that Tehran has signed but not yet ratified, allows UN inspectors access to Iranian sites with as little as two hours' notice......

......The Americans and the Europeans had been pressing for formal referral - a move that would normally lead to sanctions - but settled for the less formal option of "reporting" Iran's activities.

news.bbc.co.uk...



posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
- Er, by any reasonable reckoning you'll find that neither Russia, China nor 'Europe' are as belligerent over this as the USA (or Israel).

Define "Europe"

I have yet to read a real article where the US is talked about more than the EU when discussing Iran. If you have any proof the U.S. is taking a harder stance than the EU than I'd like to see it.



posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
I have yet to read a real article where the US is talked about more than the EU when discussing Iran.


- Of course not.

Taking a back seat (but keeping up a constant barrage of criticism and intimidation) is all part of the American 'game' in this......you don't really think it's kidding anyone do you?


If you have any proof the U.S. is taking a harder stance than the EU than I'd like to see it.


- Oh come on, get over yourself, go look at the US media and the terms of it's debates about Iran and even American comment around this place. They are falling over themselves to talk nothing but war war war.

Check out the way reports that Europe might agree to formally 'report' Iran to the UN SC is widely being taken to mean OK another idiotic ME war.

(Which is not what has happened by the way.)

Mind you all that UN Security Council stuff will change rapidly when the impossibility of getting a resolution making such a war legal becomes clear.



posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
- Of course not.

Taking a back seat (but keeping up a constant barrage of criticism and intimidation) is all part of the American 'game' in this......you don't really think it's kidding anyone do you?

Just curious...
Why is the international media playing this game?



- Oh come on, get over yourself, go look at the US media and the terms of it's debates about Iran and even American comment around this place. They are falling over themselves to talk nothing but war war war.


Care to cite examples?
The only articles I have seen talking about a war with Iran are articles posted on antiwar sites, anti Bush sites, and anti government sites.
Politicians have either said using the military is not an option or the last option. And that military action would be airstrikes on their facilities, not a war. If we were going to do something militarily we would have started preparing and there would have been a troop build up starting months ago.


Check out the way reports that Europe might agree to formally 'report' Iran to the UN SC is widely being taken to mean OK another idiotic ME war.

What are you talking about?
Eurpope was pushing for Iran to be referred to the Security Counsel. It's China and Russia who have finally agreed to report Iran.

And again, could you cite examples of people believing this is the OK to start a war?


Mind you all that UN Security Council stuff will change rapidly when the impossibility of getting a resolution making such a war legal becomes clear.

Russia and China wouldn't have agreed to this if this was for a resolution making any war legal.
If anything, this is just paving the way for sanctions.



posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 10:26 PM
link   
thatsjustweird, you might learn something from Sminkeypinkey.

Why are you such a slut to the propaganda? You seem to be smarter than that. Maybe I'm wrong.



posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
Just curious...
Why is the international media playing this game?


- Because they report what is said (so if all we are getting is a lot of pro-war noise you'll find that is the tone of the news) and secondly there aren't that many news outlets not owned and run by those with this kind of political slant.

I think you'll find Rove once called it 'creating our own reality'.


Care to cite examples?


- Look matey I am in Europe and have access to Fox, CNN, CNBC and NBC daily and I have seen umteen prominent US politicians sit and do the talking heads routine where major chunks of comment shows (cos that's what we have now with 24hr rolling 'news' - I'd hate to actually call them news shows these days) are devoted to wringing hands and talking about the region and the 'need' to go in and sort out Iran if they won't comply.

The last guy I saw was J. McCain talking about the 'need' to keep the military option open at the World Economic Forum in Davos, after talks with IAEA head Mohamed ElBaradei on the 28/01/06.


Eur
ope was pushing for Iran to be referred to the Security Counsel. It's China and Russia who have finally agreed to report Iran.


- Well, you might prefer to believe that.
I think it's obvious the US is pushing this from the back seat.
Europe and everyone else is desperately trying to find a way through the US desire to force Iran to act in the manner they want and Iran's determined natural resistance to that.

.....and you'll find they have not been referred actually.
They are, apparently, set to defer referral until March in the hope that this will allow time for more talks and some progress.


And again, could you cite examples of people believing this is the OK to start a war?


- If you want to retreat into semantics fine.
But I have seen (and I know lots of others here have seen) the 'news' shows that have spent hours 'agonising' over what to do and examining the 'options' etc etc.
You guys are being prepared.


Russia and China wouldn't have agreed to this if this was for a resolution making any war legal.


- Absolutely correct.

This is not a step to war, unlike how some wish to paint it.


If anything, this is just paving the way for sanctions.


- Again correct.
Now we'll just have to see how the pro-war lot play this - I suspect a cranking up of the old 'ineffective and spineless UN' stuff......hell, maybe a scandal or two can be contrived to dominate the airtime for a while (before largely disappearing without any real proof of anything), hmmmm?



posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Why are you such a slut to the propaganda? You seem to be smarter than that. Maybe I'm wrong.

What propaganda? Not once did I ever said I agreed with ANYTHING anyone has said about Iran and their nuclear capabilities. So please, please show me which "propaganda" I'm following.

(oh, and....are you suggesting sites like antiwar.com aren't propaganda??
I thought you were smarter than that. Maybe I'm wrong.)




Look matey I am in Europe and have access to Fox, CNN, CNBC and NBC daily and I have seen umteen prominent US politicians sit and do the talking heads routine where major chunks of comment shows (cos that's what we have now with 24hr rolling 'news' - I'd hate to actually call them news shows these days) are devoted to wringing hands and talking about the region and the 'need' to go in and sort out Iran if they won't comply.

The last guy I saw was J. McCain talking about the 'need' to keep the military option open at the World Economic Forum in Davos, after talks with IAEA head Mohamed ElBaradei on the 28/01/06.

So...you've heard politicians say that we should keep all options on the table. How is this "falling over themselves to talk nothing but war war war."
Again, maybe I'm missing it, but I'd like to see where anyone has talked of anything other than airstrikes.


Well, you might prefer to believe that.
I think it's obvious the US is pushing this from the back seat.
Europe and everyone else is desperately trying to find a way through the US desire to force Iran to act in the manner they want and Iran's determined natural resistance to that.

Oh. So you're basing your statements of your understanding of what's going on, not on any credible evidence or anything like that.
That's cool. Nothing wrong with that



But I have seen (and I know lots of others here have seen) the 'news' shows that have spent hours 'agonising' over what to do and examining the 'options' etc etc.

Can you name an issue that they don't do that with?
That's their job.



posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
So...you've heard politicians say that we should keep all options on the table. How is this "falling over themselves to talk nothing but war war war."


- Because it creates a climate.
Bush was at it last night, umteen US political representitives have been at it for many months now.

All doing their best 'what if' routines and to the best of my knowledge not one talking about Iranina compliance or how they have exceeded the requirements of the treaties they signed up to.


Again, maybe I'm missing it, but I'd like to see where anyone has talked of anything other than airstrikes.


- ......and after those air strikes what then?
Do you really think that'll be the end of it with US and UK troops next door?


Oh. So you're basing your statements of your understanding of what's going on, not on any credible evidence or anything like that.
That's cool. Nothing wrong with that


- No it's not just opinion.
It a recognition that all along as the Eu-3 have attempted to negotiate the US (and occasionally the Israelis) have issued comments and veiled threats and generally attempted to subvert the process.



Can you name an issue that they don't do that with?
That's their job.


- Their "job" is not to create a climate where yet another disasterous ME war becomes accepted as inevitable or acceptable as 'the right thing'.
Which is what they have been at for months (with the help of the media).



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join