It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Iran is not the threat it's hyped up to be

page: 4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in


posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 04:08 PM

Originally posted by ArchAngel

No, they broke the seals on their enrichment hardware, but claim they are only doing research tests and not enriching on a large scale, as would be necessary for either power generation or a weapons program.

Thats not quite accurate.

They poliely asked the UN to remove the seals.

Officials from the IAEA did NOT remove the seals. The seals were removed by Iranian officials.

Just to clarify, as you continue to insist otherwise.

IAEA inspectors were present Tuesday as Iranian officials began removing the seals, spokeswoman Melissa Fleming said from Vienna, Austria, where the agency is based. She declined to say whether the Iranians planned to start enriching uranium or would be satisfied with testing the equipment used in the process.

IAEA inspectors were present Tuesday as Iranian officials began removing the seals, spokeswoman Melissa Fleming said from Vienna, Austria, where the agency is based.

Iran said it was ready to remove UN-supervised seals at its research centres from today and called on the IAEA to have inspectors ready to witness the process.

[emphasis mine]

posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 04:14 PM

Officials from the IAEA did NOT remove the seals. The seals were removed by Iranian officials.

Just to clarify, as you continue to insist otherwise.

Iran was not required to have the seals in the first place.

The Paris accord was not binding.

Iran did ask politely that the IAEA remove the seals.

Nothing that has happened thus far is a violation of the NPT, or any international agreements.

They are fully within their rights.

posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 06:04 PM
I see four possibilities, here. One is that Iran is close to developing some sort of nuclear weapons capability - whether functional or not - that the West feels will have serious enough geopolitical or regional consequences to warrant putting greater pressure on Tehran. When I think about these things - and I am horribly uninformed compared to many users here - I try to consider all of the implications of things, not merely the most profound or obvious ones. Development of nuclear weapons, even if undeliverable, can have huge repercussions that aren't military, after all. Most governments in the West have people working feverishly to predict and anticipate global political and economic trends, and there may be implications that we can't imagine. Iran doesn’t have to pose a military threat to pose a threat. However, statements such as, "There's a lot of humidity, corrosion. It's going to take a long time," by 'unnamed diplomats' (link) and others by more visible authorities indicating the poor likelihood of any rapid or imminent development of nuclear capability by Iran, erode my confidence in this possibility – or at least its propriety.

The second is that, as some have suggested, Iran's intended establishment of a new oil exchange may threaten the dominance of the U.S. dollar. This is certainly possible, and while unlikely to - in the near or mid term - cause any significant damage, would at the very least bring about some limited erosion, even the smallest level of which the U.S. would certainly like to prevent if at all possible (especially these days). This wouldn't necessarily mean military action, of course. Sanctions might be enough for them to achieve what they consider an acceptable level of security from Iran's economic ambitions. That may be all they’re after, for all we know.

The third is that the Iranian influence over and/or support for the insurgency in Iraq may be far greater than anyone realizes, and that the U.S. and other allies who are onboard on this issue wish to squeeze Iran's ability in this area. Sanctions or air strikes that reduce their logistical, financial, and to some extent military capability with regard to any covert or overt support for the forces they're dealing with over there at present, would achieve that goal if effective.

The fourth is more radical, and that is that the conspiracy theories are true and the U.S. and its partners in these matters (or the shadow governments behind them, if the theories are to be believed) really do wish to establish greater control of the region and, in time, most of the world. I would differ with many on this, however, and would suggest that if such a thing were true, individual, graduated conflicts with one nation at a time would facilitate their goals far less efficiently than would a full blown regional conflict. Were any of this true - and I'm not saying it is; I won't open that can of worms - then I think these events would be less to start a war with Iran than to provoke a wider war in the region. A smoldering insurgency in Iraq, air strikes against Iran by the U.S. (or, especially, Israel), and perhaps a major terrorist attack (possibly involving, and thereby validating in the minds of the public, the much feared WMDs) against a major city in the U.S. or Europe, would almost certainly succeed in setting off the chain of events leading to such a conflict.

As for the honesty of our present leaders, while it is true that the intelligence services of every nation in the world that had any interest in Iraq agreed with U.S. assertions that there could be WMD programs underway on a covert basis, only the U.S. leadership disregarded CIA, FBI, and military analysis that indicated the probability that those programs becoming a threat sooner than between five and fifteen years down the road, and instead created their own unofficial intelligence gathering apparatus that filtered out everything but the speculation and indications which might affirm their assertions that Iraq posed an imminent and deadly threat to America and its allies or interests.

I'm not saying how I feel about that (or, indeed, any of this), or whether I think that assessment was accurate. I'm merely stating that it happened, and has been documented even in mainstream media since shortly after the start of the war. If I were to cast blame or judge, however, I would include Britain in any such judgments, and would say that nothing the U.S. or their partners have done is much worse than what rulers in all countries have done and will continue to do, for a long, long time, now. That doesn't make it right. Again, I'm just stating it.

If I were to state my feelings regarding these issues, it would no doubt make this post more attractive to the contestants in this seemingly endless mud slinging war, which is why I’m just expressing my thoughts instead of my thoughts plus my feelings.

posted on Jan, 28 2006 @ 07:26 PM

Officials from the IAEA did NOT remove the seals. The seals were removed by Iranian officials.

Iran requested the IAEA removed the seals. The IAEA then flew to Iran and oversaw the removal of the seals.

posted on Jan, 28 2006 @ 07:46 PM
I think that the world community is balancing on top of a 2 sided cliff! If we do one small thing wrong it could throw us either way.

In regard to Iran, we are screwed if we attack and screwed if we don't. They have the oil supply, if we attack them the price of oil will skyrocket, totally destroying western economies and the chain reaction will spread through the community from fuel prices, to food, to everyday living expenses and the community will not stand for that no matter what and civil uprising will become a certainty.

If we don't attack and they do develope nuclear weapons then the possibility that they would use them is high and the western world will be dragged into a mid-east world war anyway, thus screwing the economies of the world in the way previously stated.

If we sit back and let the jews bomb the nuclear reactors, then we will yet again be dragged into another war scenario due to the jewish influence in US politics.

3 scenarios here, total screwed either way. Why can't we just all mind our own bloody business and build our nations stronger and better of our own accord and talents rather than stickin our noses where they dont belong?

Has anyone thought of this scenario? The western world quickly developesan alternative, clean and renewable energy source that enables them to cut the chains of reliance to arab oil! This would totaly screw the arab world financially without a drop of our blood being spilt and relegate them back to the stone age without any western co-operation!


posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 08:20 AM

We got a lot of disagreement here, but line em up, I'll take em all 1 by 1.

Originally posted by Blaine91555
I agree that I went too far and off topic. Sorry. I was responding to this -

It is absolutely amazing that none of the "nuke Iran" pro-war people have responded to this thread. I see pages of responses on the thread where it's asked what if Iran nukes Israel or if the US will invade Iran, but NO RESPONSES to this thread, which clearly shows other countries are a greater threat than Iran. I guess the truth hurts...

How does making insulting and degrading remarks about those who disagree add to the debate? The fact that no one responded to this thread is proof that "other countries are a greater threat than Iran"? No more outlandish than my stupid post.

My quote there is not as bad as your (as you said) stupid post. Your problem is that you misunderstood my sentence. This part that you're focusing on, "which clearly shows other countries are a greater threat than Iran," describes the THREAD, not the lack of responses. I dunno, it looks pretty clear to me, seeing that it directly follows the word "thread." How can a lack of response show that a country is not a threat?
That's just retarded.

posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 08:23 AM

Originally posted by 27jd

Originally posted by truthseeka
It is absolutely amazing that none of the "nuke Iran" pro-war people have responded to this thread. I see pages of responses on the thread where it's asked what if Iran nukes Israel or if the US will invade Iran, but NO RESPONSES to this thread, which clearly shows other countries are a greater threat than Iran. I guess the truth hurts...

I haven't seen anybody suggest we should "nuke Iran", and what is pro-war exactly? Are you suggesting either somebody is completely against military action of any kind at any time, or they are pro-war? Anti-war would be great, as long as everybody felt that way, otherwise it wouldn't work, I'm sure you know why. Isn't there any circumstance on earth in which you would approve of military action? If so, those who disagree aren't "pro-war" any more than you, they just have differing ideas of what circumstances call for action.
[edit on 20-1-2006 by 27jd]

How about this?

Originally posted by BigTrain
I actually cannot wait until palestine and iran get shredded into pieces. It is rather exciting and I get a sort of adrenaline rush from it. Theres nothing better than seeing a bully in the middle east get a tomahawk shoved up his ...


posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 08:29 AM
Or this?

Originally posted by BigTrain
If I was Bush, I would just say to Isreal, go to town and we'll clean up the leftovers. Turn that whole region into a rolling glass landscape and solve all the worlds problems in the flip of a switch.


I saw another one, but I can't find it. Besides, don't play dumb; you hear the neocons on TV and the radio saying it. As for your pro/anti-war bit, stop playing dumb. You know that anytime someone disagrees with the war in Iraq, the CURRENT war, or this fake WOT, they are considered anti-war. Don't pretend like the people who disagree with this administration would not want to go to war for a legit reason. They corral us into a polarized world, so that's why I said pro-war.

posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 08:31 AM

Originally posted by dcgolf

"We need to strike Iran first, they want nukes, they're gonna nuke Israel, protect Israel, nuke em, nuke em, NUKE EM!!!"

o y'all realize how schizophrenic these comments are?

Who said this? Are you quoting someone?

HOWEVER, he has said that Israel should be wiped off the map and that the Holocaust never happened.

You are right. This is a totally benign statement. We shouldn't worry about this at all.

Now, keep in mind that the opinion of one man is a valid reason to go to war (namely, the prez of Iran). We have that guy in '96 threatening to vaporize LA if the US helped Taiwan, and more recently we have the general threatening to destroy numerous cities if the US interferes.

So, what is the response? You're gonna LOVE this: give the threatening countries nuclear reactors!!
Not that this is really funny, but still. When N. Korea was acting up, we gave them 2 nuclear reactors to say, "hey, guy, calm down." When China acts up, Dick Cheney gives them, you guessed it, nuclear reactors. Not only that, but tons of jobs are also going to China. Isn't that nice?

When did Mr. Cheney "give" them nuclear reactors?

N. Korea and China are the models of what the globalists want America and eventually the entire planet to be like. N. Korea: total police state. China: nearly total police state. America: well on the way to total police state.

What globalists do you speak of? President Bush has been in office almost five years. If he wanted to turn this into a police state, it would have happened by now.

1st, see the response above.

As for your assessment of the ease of creating a police state, please. Hitler didn't do it overnight, and Bush is far from the lone globalist. If you would look around, you would see that it is taking place piece by piece. Besides, it's gonna take a lot to take America down (I'm sure you agree
), but the globalists don't care. They've been planning this for decades...

posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 10:03 AM

Originally posted by deesw
I say we just take out Iran now before they do some damage.

Oh, yeah. There it is! Still say nobody's saying this?

posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 10:07 AM

Originally posted by mad scientist
Yah, this subject has been done to death, that';s probably why not too mnay people are interested. No point rehashing the same old stuff.

As for why people see Iran as a threat try, fanatical religious leadership. Everyone knows Iran supports more than a few terrorist groups. You don't see Israel funding terrorism inside Iran do you

No, but I did see Israel fund Hamas, who everybody's saying is a terrorist group.

posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 10:39 AM

Originally posted by QuietSoul
Last I checked, we're not at war with Iran yet.

No snot, of course we're not at war with them yet. But, we weren't at war with Iraq in 2002. What I said is that this is a JUSTIFICATION for war in Iran, based on the war in Iraq's justifications.

It's not a justification to attack Iran, hence, we're not at war with Iran and havent even made a threat to attack Iran..

Now if Iran threatened that "America needs wiped off the face of the planet" then I would expect they would have some serious explaining to do. But since they said it to Isreal, it's no big deal? Nice anal-ogy.

Ha ha, anal-ogy is clever (not really), but not as clever as you are with lies. They've been threatening to attack Iran since last year. What kind of false statement is that? Oh, I see, you're confused because they say war, then they say no war. Gotcha.

I must have missed it, when, or where, did the President, Congress, or any other governmental representative of the United States made the claim that Iran needs invaded?

See above statement.

Last I checked, N.Korea scrapped its entire nuclear project, and is accepting a light water reactor from the United States. Iran, on the other hand, has gone against the UN, the IAEA, and just about every "security council" country in the world in its attempt to achieve nuclear "power".

Where do you get this crap? Seriously. 1, I saw one of their top military guys threaten to nuke us if we got into a war with them. 2, Iran has given more clearance than any other country. Where do you get this, seriously?

If you actually read your links, you'd know that:

a) Only one person made this statement, and just because you linked 3 links of the same statement, doesnt make your claim anymore believable.
b) The gentleman that made the claim is a Dean of a University.. a retired General.

"If the Americans draw their missiles and position-guided ammunition onto the target zone on China's territory, I think we will have to respond with nuclear weapons," stated Zhu to the shocked audience.

First sentance of the below link:
China Wants War

It doesnt take a genius, or a general, to know that if America attacked China, there would be a nuclear war. And if you knew anything about Taiwan, then you'd know that Taiwan is infact, China's territory, and the United States has absolutly no right to intervene. It's alot like China helping the State of Texas leave the United States, it just doesnt fly.

Top Chinese General Warns US Over Attack
Chinese General Warns U.S. Over Taiwan

Both of these links are the same as the first one. A general, that isn't a general anymore, but a Dean of a Univeristy, making a speech that if the United States attacked China, at the aide of Taiwan, then China would attack back possibly using nuclear weapons.

If China attacked the United States while we were fighting in Iraq, I would assume a US General would be on TV saying we're going to war with China.

Use a little common sense here.. mmkay?

What are you talking about? People attack you if you only use one source to back your point, so I used 3. Do you know how many stories originate from one source but are carried by many? You should take your own advice on common sense. I SAID that it was one guy saying this. And, of course, we all know that deans of universities have opinions that don't the dean who went public about training some of the "hijackers."

What the hell does it matter if Taiwan (assuming you've got good info this time) is Chinese territory? We've already attacked 2 nations that did nothing to us and have their own territory. What's the point?

Your research is about as solid as a wet sponge. We gave N.Korea a light water reactor. A far cry from a reactor needed to make nuclear weapons.

You're missing the point! I don't give a damn if we gave them some Easter eggs. The point is that you don't reward a nation with any type of gift when they launch a dummy missile that lands on your soil. Weak.

I have no idea where this came from. At first I assumed your thesis was why we need, or should, go to war with Iran, then you bust out with some NWO mummble jumble about a worldly police state.. Care to explain the connection?

Can you read? I wasn't making a justification to attack Iran; I was pointing out how the whole thing is a fraud. As for the connection to the globalists, get your head out of the sand. Look at the UK and Australia, going police state. They have to attack the "rogue" nations that won't play ball.

They gave inspectors a ton of clearance. Just long enough for the inspectors to know that Iran is fully capable of creating a nuclear bomb before expelling the IAEA inspectors and stating that if anyone tried to stop them, there would be war.

Kinda like, "Look, see what I have.. now try and stop me!"

Where does this come from? The CIA itself says that they're ten years from a bomb. Why the hell would they want war with Israel, a tiny country with tons of nukes, when they are ten years from their own nukes?
You OBVIOUSLY go with the former!!! After all, we all know we have to kill all them damn "ragheads!!!"

You said it, not me.

I say stop a radical country thats openly challenging several local nations from obtaining a nuclear weapon. But hey, they haven't bothered me, so honestly, I say let Europe and Israel deal with them.
Still want to play?

But you say nothing about nations that openly threaten to nuke you. Gotcha. Makes sense to me. And no, I don't want to play "deny reality" with you. You seem to be having fun with the rest of the people being duped by the neocons and the liberals.

[edit on 3-2-2006 by truthseeka]

[edit on 3-2-2006 by truthseeka]

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3   >>

log in