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: 9
0
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 12:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
i dont necessarily want iran with nukes, but if we are going to let israel have them, i simply cant say no. im no hypocrite and i wont act like one.


Well, I'm sure Iran will be pleased that you won't say no, and that you will allow them to pursue nukes.


Again I ask you, and nobody ever seems to answer these questions, but I'll try anyway....do you have family here that you care about? Does your desire not to act like a hypocrite override your desire not to see more nuclear weapons pointed at your mother, father, brothers or sisters, along with a greater possibilty they will be used?




posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 12:17 AM
link   
You see, that's the bottom line, if Israel didn't have nukes, then Iran wouldn't need nukes.

It's tit for tat. That has to stop.



posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 12:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
then why wont israel just prove it, have inspectors go in as vigor as those that did in iraq, look under every stone. have inspectors from iran which the iran leader trusts and have them look, also have other inspectors with them to confirm it. if they have them then they should have to get rid of them. nuclear threat is the main issue, not proliferation. proliferation is an issue but an issue that cannot be solved till we start dealing with riding the nuclear weapons already here.

Will Iran allow the same unrestricted access to their nuclear facilities, above and under ground? They have not. Do not place the same demands and requirements on one, when that other one--that is the ISSUE here-- will not allow the same thing to take place within their country.





there is no reason israel should have nukes, we should be on them the same way we are on iran.

There is every reason that Israel should have nukes.
Self-evident to me, especially when they are a nation completely surrounded by those who repeatedly and habitually decree that Israel should be wiped off the map. Having those unconfirmed nukes makes for a simple checks and balance system.





theres no if ands or buts about it, iran wont need nukes if israel is shown to not have any either.

This line of reasoning is so redundant it is growing tiresome.
If Israel had no nukes, Iran would still seek to acquire nuclear weapons.
If Israel got rid of all its unconfirmed nukes, Iran would still seek to acquire nuclear weapons.
The fault is not Israel having nukes; the fault is Iran simple and purposeful intentions to acquire nuclear weapons technology and abilities, while disguising it as peaceful intent and/or leaving proponents to postulate and assert habitually that it is Israel's fault for having nukes.
Do you think every nation on the face of this Earth should have the right to acquire nuclear weapons?
If you are against nations having nuclear weapons, then advocate for a world free of nuclear weapons. But to simply single one out because they have nuclear weapons as an excuse for another to have nuclear weapons is ludicrous.




a way to stop proliferation of nuclear weapons is to show the threat of people using them is going down. if israel proved they had no nuclear weapons, iran doesnt have any reason either, so if either had them, we'd bomb them if they didnt disarm. its as simple as that. you cant stop nuclear proliferation till you can show the threat of other countries nuclear powers are going to be destroyed.

See my above commentary.
The UN and the IAEA is the ones who should be preventing nuclear proliferation, not the US, not China, not Russia, not the EU, the UN and the IAEA. If they cannot do what they should be doing, then they should be disbanded or reformed. I have my suspicions that Iran will indeed acquire nuclear weapons, despite sanctions, etc. Iran will join the nuclear club. The world will be an exciting place for the next 50 years. Embrace it and look forward to it. Nuclear proliferation is null-in-void. I fear that a real cease to nuclear proliferation will not take place till there is another few Hiroshima's and Nagasaki's, obviously on a greater scale.





seekerof

[edit on 8-1-2006 by Seekerof]



posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 12:20 AM
link   
Exactly the IAEA should refer Iran to the UN, who must fix it, if they dont fix it, disband the UN they arnt doing what they are spost to do!



posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 12:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
You see, that's the bottom line, if Israel didn't have nukes, then Iran wouldn't need nukes.

It's tit for tat. That has to stop.


Why exactly would Iran need them? Has Israel ever threatened Iran with nukes? Has Israel ever said Iran should be wiped off the map? If Iran would chill, nobody would have any legitimate reason to do anything to them, they could reap the benefits of nuclear energy with Russian enriched uranium, while enjoying closer ties with Russia and at the same time peacefully raise the issue of Israel's possible possesion of nukes. But instead they wanna keep pushing things. I'm sure Iran has other enemies besides the U.S. and Israel, should they also be permitted to pursue nukes to protect themselves from Iran? What about the enemies of Iran's enemies?



posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 12:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Do you think every nation on the face of this Earth should have the right to acquire nuclear weapons?


Dude, I've asked that several times on this thread, and haven't recieved so much as one answer.



posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 12:58 AM
link   
alright so what your saying is if iran simply didnt say anything about israel they could have nukes? you said they should have them because they are violent? well how about if they hadnt called for israel to be wiped off the map? i can garentee that the US doesnt care about that at all. israel is nothing more then a strategic base for our forces till the middle easts oil fields are dry, once that happens they will not care if israel were to take the entire area as a thank you for letting us stay there.

yes i do have family here and frankly, i dont have much say in what happens. if i did believe me we wouldnt be in this position we are in at all. reguardless of how i personally feel about whether iran having nukes is right, that wouldnt stop me from approaching it in an unbias fashion. that is disarming israel with iran. that way iran has no reason for nuclear weapons. once that is complete should iran still pursue them then its another story. from there we go to the rest of the world, not from iran to rest of the middle east. the middle east is the most unstable and needs to be solved at once, not step by step. step by step has too much possibility of us forgetting our goal and disarming iran then leaving israel and causing this same problem BUT AGAIN. like i said though, if they did pursue nukes again after israel was disarmed, the UN would go in and rid that government official. then we would let the people decide as a whole what government they want and what leaders they want. (though propaganda would lead them to democratic republic thats a different issue)

further more you are right, its not our job, its the UN job. funny though because we dont handle it that way. wonder what good the UN is if we go in guns blazing even the many nations are against it.

i do not believe any of us should have nuclear weapons, that why i call up hypocritical that we can say you cant have nukes but make no real effort to disarm ourselves, major bullies to non nuclear nations. our current government will never achive peace in the middle east or in any other part of the world. they handle issues on a level of thinking which is equal to ancient warlords. malicious and war hungry. peace as their disguise. plain fact is that this world is on a downward spiral till we get some real leaders in our country that can start really helping and changing this world. this goes for russia and other super powers as well. thing is we cant target other governments when our own is part of the problem.

they said problem was the government, but gave it to big business and left it just as corrupt.



posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 01:04 AM
link   
I have to disagree that diplomacy alone will do the trick ECK. Diplomacy is phase 1. Insurance is phase 2, and that relies on the ability to enforce negotiated conditions. I'm not saying peace is impossible, I'm only saying that words alone are not enough- there must be action, and a preclusion of hostile action.

In the words of Ronald Reagan, "Trust, but verify". It's great to initiate diplomacy in trust that it will bring us an alternative to war, but the outcome of that diplomacy must be a verification that neither side is able to successfully disregard its commitments.

America's foreign policy has been insane for something like 16 years, not 5. The minute we allowed Iraq the misguided idea that we would stand for an invasion of Kuwait, thus devastating what had been a promising relationship, we became certifiable.

When we stuck our thumb up our butt and whistled a happy tune from the afforementioned orifice as North Korea nuclearized... well that was straight-jacket time.

Getting rid of Bush won't necessarily get us out of the woods, because the last two presidents were nuts too (which should be shocking since one of them had a great foreign policy resume coming into the job)

Here are the possible options and my grading of them:
1. Let Iran get nukes- F minus, and we deserve it if they nuke us.
2. Screw our own troops with another long and costly occupation- F minus, and execution for treason.
3. Diplomatic "sollution" that Iran immediately violates, resulting in a nuclear Iran- F minus, same as #1, plus a Darwin Award
4. Bomb Iran and be ready in case they hit us back- C+ and a gentle kick in the butt for not doing better.
5. An enforceable diplomatic sollution that nobody can violate without being caught and suffering severe consequences- A+ and whoever figues out how to do it ought to be our next President.

One more time for emphasis: We need strictly verifiable and strictly enforceable terms of peace. If we can't get them, we almost surely ARE going to war whether we want to or not, and we'd be wise to do it sooner rather than later.



posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 01:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
yes i do have family here and frankly, i dont have much say in what happens


That didn't answer all my questions to you. Hypathetically, would you agree with more nuclear weapons being pointed at your family, because of your desire not to favor Israel, who does not have any nukes pointed at your family? We all seem to agree that the world needs to be rid of nukes, why then do you favor, or at least not oppose everybody and their mother having them just because Israel may? There's a sort of all or nothing attitude in some regarding something as important as our existence. One bump in the road to complete non-proliferation means complete abandonment of it? I think that's pretty lame.



posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 01:30 AM
link   
If I may add my two cents... It clearly goes back to the golden rule--- "He who has the biggest gun rules".

Does Iran have the right to nuclear weapons? Of course they do... So does fiji, cayman islands,...etc. If a country has the means to aquire weapons of mass destruction they will do so. What if there were a more sophisticated(deadly on mass scale) weapon than nuclear bombs. Who would have the right to develope and deploy them? Surely not a nation who has demonstrated the willingness to kill thousands of people on a grand scale, nevermind a nation who makes threats of such...RIGHT... The state of Israel screwed up when they thought they could displace people and allow the to live in their midst.

How ridiculous...

Additionally you all need to get a grip... The US is not capable of fighting a country like Iran... And what makes the matter worse is she has publisized this for the world to see.. I don't care what you think you know about those who want a change internally, very few will take to kindly to their county being bombed from afar... The same is true for any ground invasion... In addition america does not have the heart to fight and win... you won't even institute a draft when you know it is so desparately needed... The draft will cut deep through america making all you greedy elites have to actually do something besides live off the backs of others (aka capitolism)... Iraq was a cripled country, had no control over 2/3 her own airspace, mounted a sporadic feeble defence and you all pat yourselves on the back like you actually did something...

I predict Iran will be attacked by Israel or US or both... A wider conflict will develope in the middle east involving a nuclear exchange(s)... The US being crippled for lack of troop strength will be vunerable on the homefront... A major event will take place in US which will signal the beginning of the end for good 'ol US of A... and Oh yeah all of our friendly neighbors to south will be waiting one th sidelines to get a piece as she falls...



posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 01:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
I have to disagree that diplomacy alone will do the trick ECK. Diplomacy is phase 1. Insurance is phase 2, and that relies on the ability to enforce negotiated conditions. I'm not saying peace is impossible, I'm only saying that words alone are not enough- there must be action, and a preclusion of hostile action.


exactly why we wont reach peace any time soon. id like to say we already tried to have diplomatic relations, but i just dont have that kind of trust in the government to say they were actually worth anything more then a "do this or we will screw you big time." america leaders dont listen, they tell. they dont listen then discuss, they tell then expect. i know this because thats how big business treats people that they have control over and big business controls this company, so why shouldnt i believe thats how it is in foriegn affairs as well? words alone can be enough, if you listen to them instead of just say yours then expect them to be followed.


In the words of Ronald Reagan, "Trust, but verify". It's great to initiate diplomacy in trust that it will bring us an alternative to war, but the outcome of that diplomacy must be a verification that neither side is able to successfully disregard its commitments.


yes which is why if they back out, then the UN can attack them. we need to stop all the gray areas. make it simple and it will be simple to follow. simply say "no pursuit of nuclear weapons....thats all. we are going to continue to disarm ourselves slowly, and should any of you pursue them, we over throw you. we gave your warning and now its as simple as that" but we cant do that yet because we arent at that position yet. it would be alot easier if we could calm the middle east instead of taking sides. we havent pursued peace, weve been fueling their wars for years with supplying them weapons and stuff.

but further more who are we to say a nation cant have its own peaceful reactors. i wouldnt want another country in charge of my power source. would you like your main source of power to depend on another country that could have an uprising or something and cut you off? that would be a severe problem in your country and destroy any chances of peace amoung people.


America's foreign policy has been insane for something like 16 years, not 5. The minute we allowed Iraq the misguided idea that we would stand for an invasion of Kuwait, thus devastating what had been a promising relationship, we became certifiable.

When we stuck our thumb up our butt and whistled a happy tune from the afforementioned orifice as North Korea nuclearized... well that was straight-jacket time.

Getting rid of Bush won't necessarily get us out of the woods, because the last two presidents were nuts too (which should be shocking since one of them had a great foreign policy resume coming into the job)


the minute we backed saddam we made a mistake. we shouldnt be supporting anyone military wise. sure the UN protects them against invasion, but we dont give them weapons. iraq attacked iran, iran attacked iraq, iraq attacks kuwait, we attack iraq, we pull out before we get rid of the current problem, iraq not as much a threat, we attack them again. iraq was the cause of these wars, and we backed iraq back then before it started. we supported them with military means. that was A WRONG MOVE. yet we countinued to do it with saudi arabia iran and israel. want peace? you dont say stop fighting then give the two enemies guns to shoot eachother, thatsa mixed message to say the least.


Here are the possible options and my grading of them:
1. Let Iran get nukes- F minus, and we deserve it if they nuke us.
2. Screw our own troops with another long and costly occupation- F minus, and execution for treason.
3. Diplomatic "sollution" that Iran immediately violates, resulting in a nuclear Iran- F minus, same as #1, plus a Darwin Award
4. Bomb Iran and be ready in case they hit us back- C+ and a gentle kick in the butt for not doing better.
5. An enforceable diplomatic sollution that nobody can violate without being caught and suffering severe consequences- A+ and whoever figues out how to do it ought to be our next President.


(1.) i dont believe we should do, but cannot justify otherwise on current path.
(2.)no that isnt an option at all
(3.) who are you to deem they will violate it. if in fact we did it as a nuetral fair nation instead of a israel bias greedy nation, maybe the terms would be reasonable and they could bare with it till maybe more stable ideas came along. this wont happen though, so if they did break this biased probably unfair agreement, the UN would come in and bomb then overthrow leaders and not install democracy but the government of the peoples choosing along with the leaders of their choosing.
(4.) further the hatred for america which is already high...i can see the terrorist attack and terror alert rising as im typing right now
(5.) some how in this option we can catch them if they violate it but not the other one? im confused how did that happen? then we go with an option 4 followed by a 2? this seems like 3 but instead of handling it like a civilized society we come in guns blazing and occupy iran like we did iraq.


One more time for emphasis: We need strictly verifiable and strictly enforceable terms of peace. If we can't get them, we almost surely ARE going to war whether we want to or not, and we'd be wise to do it sooner rather than later.


thats pretty funny, you cant even possibly consider that peace. thats more like a death threat. because you feel we cant have peace without military action, thats not peace at all anyway. so yes according to you we are at war unless iran steps down and allows their country in the hands of others. (which that is something unacceptable for any country. the people would overthrow them so quick it wouldnt even be funny. they would be replaced by some one who WOULD make sure their country was in their hands)



posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 01:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd
That didn't answer all my questions to you. Hypathetically, would you agree with more nuclear weapons being pointed at your family, because of your desire not to favor Israel, who does not have any nukes pointed at your family? We all seem to agree that the world needs to be rid of nukes, why then do you favor, or at least not oppose everybody and their mother having them just because Israel may? There's a sort of all or nothing attitude in some regarding something as important as our existence. One bump in the road to complete non-proliferation means complete abandonment of it? I think that's pretty lame.


haha my desire not to favor israel is because of hate created from that. nukes wouldnt be pointed at us if we werent involved with israel in any way. we are on israels side and thats clear, thats why we have such hate for us in the middle east, because we are taking sides where we shouldnt be.



posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 01:44 AM
link   
israelcd, wanna know why we wont have a draft? because the citizens here for the most dont want war unless its absolutely necessary. we as people dont really want to fight, our leaders do. this is becuase our leaders can benefit from it. personally if theres a draft here, no one will go because they dont believe in the war we are creating. its obvious that the people here dont care. i wouldnt go, im not going because we create wars for big business personal gain, for rich peoples personal gain. i am nowhere near rich and this war doesnt help me or my community, in fact it does the opposite. friends dying over there for reason we dont even know because big business owns our media so we cant even figure out whats true and isnt.



posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 01:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
haha my desire not to favor israel is because of hate created from that. nukes wouldnt be pointed at us if we werent involved with israel in any way. we are on israels side and thats clear, thats why we have such hate for us in the middle east, because we are taking sides where we shouldnt be.


I guess I'll take that as a yes then, since you won't answer. If it were up to you, you favor having nuclear weapons pointed at your family, over being "unfair" to Iran.



posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 01:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797


haha my desire not to favor israel is because of hate created from that. nukes wouldnt be pointed at us if we werent involved with israel in any way. we are on israels side and thats clear, thats why we have such hate for us in the middle east, because we are taking sides where we shouldnt be.



Sorry to see you feel that way, so to your logic you think Israel should just be hung out to dry and destroyed by anyone who wants ?

And then whos next ? whos the little guy after that, and after that, and after that, one by one the world will fall until we get that NWO that everyone speaks of.



posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 01:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd
I guess I'll take that as a yes then, since you won't answer. If it were up to you, you favor having nuclear weapons pointed at your family, over being "unfair" to Iran.


i guess ill take that as you dont read. if you did youd know that i dont want iran with nukes, but i cannot have that justified till israel can be confirmed to have no nuclear weapons, and in this case the same nuclear power situation. yes i have answered you chose not to except it because i dont agree with treating iran worse then israel in the same situations. you wonder why these nations hate you, because of the way you handle situations like this, with bias



posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 02:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by NumberCruncher
Sorry to see you feel that way, so to your logic you think Israel should just be hung out to dry and destroyed by anyone who wants ?

And then whos next ? whos the little guy after that, and after that, and after that, one by one the world will fall until we get that NWO that everyone speaks of.


you guys arent even reading what i said, you cannot side with israel in a war and claim you want peace. that doesnt make any sense. hung out to dry? yea and whos going to attack them, and with what? if none of them have nukes are they going to do land invasions? if so then israel cannot defend itself? i beg to differ on that point then. if anyone should be worrying it would be saudi arabia. low population, no nukes, the only thing they got are weapons which they might be able to use. i say might because only so many people can fight till you have no more people. israel doesnt have a major enemy if nukes arent involved. plain and simple.

by your justification iran should have nukes then. you say should israel be left hung out to dry and destroyed, when even without nukes they are better suited for war then iran is. irans technology is outdated and alot of their land crafts cant be used because of no new parts for them. they gunna run over to israel by foot?



posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 02:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by israelcd
If I may add my two cents... It clearly goes back to the golden rule--- "He who has the biggest gun rules".

Additionally you all need to get a grip... The US is not capable of fighting a country like Iran... And what makes the matter worse is she has publisized this for the world to see.. I don't care what you think you know about those who want a change internally, very few will take to kindly to their county being bombed from afar... The same is true for any ground invasion... In addition america does not have the heart to fight and win... you won't even institute a draft when you know it is so desparately needed... The draft will cut deep through america making all you greedy elites have to actually do something besides live off the backs of others (aka capitolism)... Iraq was a cripled country, had no control over 2/3 her own airspace, mounted a sporadic feeble defence and you all pat yourselves on the back like you actually did something...

I predict Iran will be attacked by Israel or US or both... A wider conflict will develope in the middle east involving a nuclear exchange(s)... The US being crippled for lack of troop strength will be vunerable on the homefront... A major event will take place in US which will signal the beginning of the end for good 'ol US of A... and Oh yeah all of our friendly neighbors to south will be waiting one th sidelines to get a piece as she falls...


Isrealcd, where has the US publisized that it can not fight Iran and win? If you know how the US military is set-up, then you would know that out military is set up to fight on 2 major fronts, Iraq is not even a major front. The US has 1.8(roughly) million active duty, plus 800,000(roughly) reservists. We dont even have 200,000 fighting personnel in Iraq right now. How could you say that the US could not fight Iran due to troop shortages? Oh, and there will be no draft, the one time is was brought up in congress it was voted down by an incredible majority. Alot-3 or something around there.

However, here at home you are right that we do not have the heart to fight, but if Iran continues on its path, there wont be a choice. If there are more countries willing to go with us on it, then I think the mentality here in the states could change. If it does happen, the US will stick with it 100%, but the question is, will those that come with us? I dont think there will be an occupation if it happens, but I think would be major ground fighting. Iraq and Iran slugged it out for 8 years, the US stopped Iraq in 100 hours, and that was 15 years ago. Dont you think we could stop Irans military, while not in 100 hours, but make it very clear in at least 2 weeks that their military has no chance.

As for the downfall of the US, nah, if something like that drastic were to happen on our soil, it tends to strengthen our resolve, not crush it. Americans band together in times of crisis, though you could use Katrina as a counter to that statement, but that was just political bickering by Repubs. and Dems, very childish if you ask me.



posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 02:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
i guess ill take that as you dont read. if you did youd know that i dont want iran with nukes, but i cannot have that justified till israel can be confirmed to have no nuclear weapons, and in this case the same nuclear power situation. yes i have answered you chose not to except it because i dont agree with treating iran worse then israel in the same situations. you wonder why these nations hate you, because of the way you handle situations like this, with bias


No, I'm afraid it's the other way around. You didn't read my question, obviously. I did not ask you what you think is causing Iran to pursue nukes. You've already have stated why you think Iran is after nukes, over and over again. I asked you if you would rather have more nuclear weapons pointed at your family for the sake of being "fair" to Iran. That's it. Simple question. Instead of an answer you danced around it like Bobby Brown after too much coke. If I asked you if you thought it was acceptable to eat babies, I suspect you would answer by saying the only reason people eat babies to begin with, is because fast food is too unhealthy, when the question called for 'yes' or 'no'. If you don't want to answer directly because it screws up your arguement, just say you don't want to answer. Those nations that hate me hate you too, my young fellow American. Think they care to interview every American to determine where they stand politically before they press the button?


[edit on 8-1-2006 by 27jd]



posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 02:15 AM
link   
Why on earth should Saudi be scared ? omg is someone threatening them ?

No its Iran telling the world that Israel needs to be wiped off the face of the Earth.

Imagine if Israel went and said the same thing, all hell would break loose.




top topics



 
0
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join