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.

 

Iranian War Monitor

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 28 2006 @ 05:52 AM
link   
Ill tell you what, America is not going to hop in to any wars this year. Not unless were provoked and have too. Bush doesnt have enough time left in office, and isnt gonna fire up a fat war, and then leave his post. you would have to be out of your mind to do that.

Anyways. Iran is stiring up alot of the worlds leaders cause of this nuclear research. Ide say there main priority is definitly isreal, Isreal has the most advanced anti missle systems in the world as of right now. I mean i can see why the leaders in iran are doing what they want to do. Iran wants to develop nuclear power plants to fix the problem of constant power outages in the north towards Tehran. And then the UN is stepping in saying "you cant do that". well of course Irans gonna be like "F*** you" and who wouldnt, Governments, parliments world round is filled with those P*ssy B*itches you knew in back in highschool, that would think they know everything, cry cause they got a A instead of an A+. They think everyone is out to get them, Basicly there power hungry. Now there saying Iran has nuclear weapons. I want to see some photos of that to beleive it.

Even if Iran has to fight some other county, its gonna be one for the history books. Iran has in the past, even put the numbers out on the battlefield, during the Iran/Iraq war in the 80's One million people died all togeather.

Think what they will do Today. it would just be horrible to hear about that many people maby even more going down in 06. eff that. No one young in iran likes the government. but yet they will get forced into war, then die for something they dont beleive in what cause is that?


America should focus towards Korea.




posted on Jan, 28 2006 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by cam man
Even if Iran has to fight some other county, its gonna be one for the history books. Iran has in the past, even put the numbers out on the battlefield, during the Iran/Iraq war in the 80's One million people died all togeather.

Think what they will do Today. it would just be horrible to hear about that many people maby even more going down in 06. eff that. No one young in iran likes the government. but yet they will get forced into war, then die for something they dont beleive in what cause is that?


Are you implying that Iranians don't believe in defending their country? If any cause is to be questioned, its the cause of invading another country.

As for the one million figure, it actually exceeds that. The one million were the Iranian casualties. Iraq suffered around 300,000. Still a lot, but nothing compared to Iranian losses.



posted on Jan, 28 2006 @ 01:21 PM
link   
fox news is reporting iran is threatening "missle retaliation" if attacked. well if too many missles hit isreal and destroy large numbers of the population, i think this war would come to a glowing end very soon. will all u religious people pray for the world for me.



posted on Jan, 28 2006 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo

Originally posted by cam man



Are you implying that Iranians don't believe in defending their country? If any cause is to be questioned, its the cause of invading another country.

As for the one million figure, it actually exceeds that. The one million were the Iranian casualties. Iraq suffered around 300,000. Still a lot, but nothing compared to Iranian losses.


I was throwing a figure out, it wasnt 1 mil, on the dot. dont make it seem like i dont know the facts please.

do the iranians really have a choice? they dont right now They would pretty much have to fight for there country, regardless. Countys such as iran will put all there resources in to any conflict,if you dont, they throw you in prison and torture you. you cant even speak out against the leader. They basicly say, heres a rifle some rounds, now go fight and die for your country, Theres really no cut off age either, during the iraq/iran war. Kids were takin from there familys and told to walk across mine fields to clear the way for experienced soldiers, telling them they will die with honor. But the world shouldnt see anything like that anymore. It would be so inhumane, and horrible, Why bring it to that level. i know more on this subject than most people. not to be cocky.

But i beleive theres alot of accusing going on and less solid facts, Simmilar to Iraq pre-war. And if war breaks out over it, Thats going to be sad. Cause obviously noone is learning from history.



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 02:09 PM
link   
Here's a little of the more sober view.

Jack Straw British Foreign Minster -


The UK foreign secretary has said that talks aimed at resolving a dispute over Iran's nuclear programme must allow Iran to maintain its national dignity.
"We must have a bargain which enables both sides to come out of it with their head held high," Jack Straw said.


- The report goes on to say......


Mr Straw has repeatedly said that the crisis must be resolved through diplomatic not military means.

"It's hard going. It is hard to think of another government which is harder to negotiate with," Mr Straw said in Davos, but "it is the only way through".


news.bbc.co.uk...

- All those convincing themselves that 'Europe' - or the Eu3 - is feeling as 'hard line' about this as the USA and Israel should consider this is the UK point of view (which is the closest to the US).

'Our' (UK) government knows fine well that a new war would be politically impossible because the present grounds for it are so thin as to be completely laughable.

Thanks to the precedent set for the latest Iraq war our government also knows there is no way it could win the now necessary vote in the British Parliament to approve this war some seem determined to have.



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 02:43 PM
link   
War with Iran will occur this year. Why? Because Russia will finish delivering new Sunburn missiles by About July. If Iran has those, US casualties would heighten considerably (As would Israeli casualties). Keep the possibility of an inside job open, it's long overdue.



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 04:50 PM
link   
Double Post.. sorry

[edit on 29-1-2006 by North Rider]



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 04:56 PM
link   
Well If you havent yet figured out why were hearing so much with Iran Lately I draw ur attention to a article that was written in 2004 that pretty much predicts what is happening now and the reason for the Iraq war. It pretty much puts the whole middle east Picture together.

Article




The Iranians are about to commit an "offense" far greater than Saddam Hussein's conversion to the euro of Iraq’s oil exports in the fall of 2000. Numerous articles have revealed Pentagon planning for operations against Iran as early as 2005. While the publicly stated reasons will be over Iran's nuclear ambitions, there are unspoken macroeconomic drivers explaining the Real Reasons regarding the 2nd stage of petrodollar warfare - Iran's upcoming euro-based oil Bourse.

In 2005-2006, The Tehran government has a developed a plan to begin competing with New York's NYMEX and London's IPE with respect to international oil trades - using a euro-denominated international oil-trading mechanism. This means that without some form of US intervention, the euro is going to establish a firm foothold in the international oil trade. Given U.S. debt levels and the stated neoconservative project for U.S. global domination, Tehran's objective constitutes an obvious encroachment on U.S. dollar supremacy in the international oil market



You will probably see some military action in march when they do plan to switch. The reason why you hear Iran saying so much about thier nuclear program is they do actually fear intervention from the us and having nuclear weapons would force a more equal balance. Since Isreal is the only country in the middle east that does have them.

Iran is acting like anyone who is scared about someone attacking thier country for what they have, wouldnt you get ready for it anyway you could. Im not saying what their doing is right im just trying to give a reason for thier actions.

The stuff you hear in the news is just the same as you heard about Iraq before the Invasion. All information to get countries onside. The US is out to protect the US from all attacks, weither it be from terrorism or the global market. They do not want their economy attacked like they dont want thier land attacked and they will do whatever it takes to protect their market.


[edit on 29-1-2006 by North Rider]



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by cam man
I was throwing a figure out, it wasnt 1 mil, on the dot. dont make it seem like i dont know the facts please.


Take a hike, I was just correcting you. Nowhere did I ever make it seem you didn't know the facts.




do the iranians really have a choice? they dont right now They would pretty much have to fight for there country, regardless. Countys such as iran will put all there resources in to any conflict,if you dont, they throw you in prison and torture you. you cant even speak out against the leader. They basicly say, heres a rifle some rounds, now go fight and die for your country, Theres really no cut off age either, during the iraq/iran war. Kids were takin from there familys and told to walk across mine fields to clear the way for experienced soldiers, telling them they will die with honor. But the world shouldnt see anything like that anymore. It would be so inhumane, and horrible, Why bring it to that level. i know more on this subject than most people. not to be cocky.

But i beleive theres alot of accusing going on and less solid facts, Simmilar to Iraq pre-war. And if war breaks out over it, Thats going to be sad. Cause obviously noone is learning from history.


And as if Americans have a choice? Sure, nobody in America is forced into war, but war does effect the American public more ways than one. Its really no different from another country going to war; the public has no say in the matter.



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 06:43 PM
link   
Look in to it, theres a huge diffrence. Iran handels War diffrent from america, uncomparable.

And even if Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons to mount on long range missles. Russia i hear is making sure that the nuclear arms are not making it back to Iran, All the research would be done in russia. So basicly if they were to launch them, they would have to get the OK from russia. if not, theres no launch. Sort of a fail safe.

[edit on 29-1-2006 by cam man]



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 02:49 AM
link   
Considering the lack of accountability for stockpiles of weapons grade nuclear materials that have vanished since the Soviet Union dissolved, we should not assume that Iran is without nuclear capability already.

This showdown has been building up for a while. Mainstream media didn't make a big deal about it, but there has been more written about Iran's moves toward confrontational stance on nuclear technology over the past couple of years.

I wonder how the world would react to a nuclear blast in an American city. Would everyone point to Bin Laden's latest tape, is it perhaps a decoy?

I am not as surprised as many people appear to be about the Hamas victory.

Who is the real force behind this movement?

I urge people to plug the following name into their search engines.

Mohtashemi-Pur

This man hosted a conference on terrorism not long before the 9/11 attacks, his man Imad Mugniyeh killed the 241 marines in Beirut.
This former Iranian ambassador to Syria is a main founding force behind Hezbullah and was one of two Iranian representatives to attend Arafat's funeral procession.



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 08:47 PM
link   
So it looks like we're entering the home straight then:

news.bbc.co.uk...

I expect more stalling from Iran. They'll probably say they'll agree to having their uranium enriched in Russia in the hope of that getting bogged down in negotiations for the next few months, which will further split the US/EU from China/Russia.

I think the countdown has started, ladies & gentlemen



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 09:03 PM
link   

- All those convincing themselves that 'Europe' - or the Eu3 - is feeling as 'hard line' about this as the USA and Israel should consider this is the UK point of view (which is the closest to the US).

'Our' (UK) government knows fine well that a new war would be politically impossible because the present grounds for it are so thin as to be completely laughable.


Yes Sminky, so thin indeed, a country who openly calls for the destruction of another, and one who is on a highly suspicious and questionable path concerning Nuclear Weapons. I might also add that those weapons would have sufficient range to target Europe. The EU should focus on a diplomatic solution, however they should never take the option of a military solution out of the scenario. Doing so gives the enemy leverage, and opens up the possibility of Nuclear blackmail.



posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Yes Sminky, so thin indeed


- I am glad we can at least agree on that then Westy.


a country who openly calls for the destruction of another


- 'Iran' didn't do that actually, their President made an idiot of himself at a rally for supporting the Palestinians and did that. It was not as if it was a formal declaration by the Iranian government, is it?
This is the kind of rhetoric that has been said at many other such gatherings in the ME.

......and distasteful as you or I might find it it is hardly grounds for a new disasterous ME war.

(Tell me do you imagine for one second the Saudi Arabians 'support' Israel?)


and one who is on a highly suspicious and questionable path concerning Nuclear Weapons.


- So you and people like you keep claiming.

You might get a little more credibility over this if there was a lot less of the "suspicious" and inuendo and just the slightest shred of any actual evidence.
(which there isn't)


I might also add that those weapons would have sufficient range to target Europe.


- Funny how that one seems to dawn on so few of the pro-war Americans.

Yes, China, Russia, India, Pakistan and Europe would all be in range of this supposed missile-bourne 'threat'.
Yet we are all far from taking the same pro-war attitude as some, strange, hmmmm?


The EU should focus on a diplomatic solution


- That is exactly what 'we' are trying to do; however the threats and intimidation coming from 'certain quarters' are no help at all.


however they should never take the option of a military solution out of the scenario.


- Dream on.
Like I said, the peoples of Europe are against the existing ME war, they certainly show absolutely zero sign of being supportive of yet another folly.......and a folly so clearly based on lies, half truth and sheer deception.

Europe (like anyone else) always retains the 'military option' but only if absolutely needed and never as the reflex instant and only threat (unlike some).


Doing so gives the enemy leverage, and opens up the possibility of Nuclear blackmail.


- Er, feel free to explain, how does that one work exactly?

'We' have umteen nuclear weapons already thank you very much.



posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 04:15 PM
link   

......and distasteful as you or I might find it it is hardly grounds for a new disasterous ME war.

(Tell me do you imagine for one second the Saudi Arabians 'support' Israel?)


Maybe and maybe not, at least they don't threaten to wipe Israel off the map. Forgive me, but I don't have as much faith as you seem to have that Iran will act in a manner contradictive of what its president says.


You might get a little more credibility over this if there was a lot less of the "suspicious" and inuendo and just the slightest shred of any actual evidence.
(which there isn't)


Do you trust the credibly of the IAEA?


U.N. Says Iran Holds Illicit Nuke Document

VIENNA, Austria - A document obtained by Iran on the nuclear black market serves no other purpose than to make an atomic bomb, the International Atomic Energy Agency said Tuesday.

The finding was made in a report prepared for presentation to the 35-nation IAEA board when it meets, starting Thursday, on whether to refer Iran to the U.N. Security Council
which has the power to impose economic and political sanctions on Iran.

IAEA Report


Now Sminkey, circumstantial evidence goes a long way in this world, especially when the potential lives of millions hang in the balance. No reasonable person can deny that all the circumstantial evidence in this case points toward one conclusion, and that is that Iran intends to develop Nuclear weapons.
Perhaps you and others would like to have a Nuclear warhead with a made in Iran tag in order to believe otherwise, but fortunately for us, the world cannot afford to wait that long.


Yet we are all far from taking the same pro-war attitude as some, strange, hmmmm?


No not really, in recent times Europe has always been hesitant to use military force to achieve a desired outcome. However I have no doubt, that as the layers of lies start to peel of Iran's claims, and as their intentions become clearer Europe will have no choice but to come to the same conclusion as those “Pro-War” hooligans.



- That is exactly what 'we' are trying to do; however the threats and intimidation coming from 'certain quarters' are no help at all.


Sminkey, that's what we’re all trying to do, however one must at some point realize the fact that running around in circles forever chasing Iran is not going to accomplish anything. When that fact is realized there should be no hesitation to apply alternative means of “diplomacy”


Europe (like anyone else) always retains the 'military option' but only if absolutely needed and never as the reflex instant and only threat (unlike some).


We should hope that is the case, I for one would not have it any other way



- Er, feel free to explain, how does that one work exactly?

'We' have umteen nuclear weapons already thank you very much.


Certainly, ask yourself, who has more at stake, Europe or Iran? Is Europe's current leadership ready to call Iran’s bluff if they threaten Nuclear War if a specific goal of theirs is not achieved?

Also, when I said it gives them leverage, I meant that actions speak louder then words. If Iran realizes we wont back up our words, then they lose their value.



posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Maybe and maybe not


- The correct answer (as I'm sure you know only too well) is 'not'.


at least they don't threaten to wipe Israel off the map.


- Na matey, what you mean is that their anti-Israeli/Jewish comments (and their funding and hosting of terror groups) goes unreported or is played down and are not being hyped into a cause for a new ME war, hmmmm?

Which countries' nationals was it that 'did' 9/11 again, hmmm?


Forgive me, but I don't have as much faith as you seem to have that Iran will act in a manner contradictive of what its president says.


- Well that is a point of view I suppose.

But excuse me whilst I point out that they already act (and have for years acted) "in a manner contradictive" to their President.
(Are you another one who really does need to get their head around the idea that the US version of President is not universal?)

It's funny but on the one hand some folks here seem to want to pretend a couple of nuclear weapons would 'wipe out' Israel (which is in any case false) and yet Irans already long existent WMD and missile capability just gets ignored.

What I can't work out is how come there's meant to be this scary threat from a couple (hell for the sake of argument lets imagine they get two dozen) of nuclear weapons launched by missile at Israel and yet the far more feasible attack by a couple of hundred with chemical and biological weapons just gets ignored.

Why?
It's obvious.

Because they have had that capability for years and years and done nothing and never gave anyone the slightest indication they ever would do anything.

Which makes the idea of imminent threat absurd; wouldn't you say.


Do you trust the credibly of the IAEA?


- Yes.



U.N. Says Iran Holds Illicit Nuke Document


- .....and the UN are set to make enquiries about it.

I actually posted up a UK news outlet's story about this.
The source of the 'document' is far from clear and I see there is little acknowledgement to the fact that the Iranians provided this 'evidence' to the UN's IAEA people themselves.
We already know from US leaks that the USA has tried to pass on and provide Iran with nuclear bomb details (even if they were said to lead them down false alleys).

.....and come on "illicit nulear document"!?
What does that really mean, a sketch or design anyone could lift from the net or any half competent physics student (or even history student) could put together?

Convenient timing, I will say that though.


circumstantial evidence goes a long way in this world


- Sadly for some people that is true, I agree.


especially when the potential lives of millions hang in the balance.


- ....and therein lies the tragedy of that initial statement.


No reasonable person can deny that all the circumstantial evidence in this case points toward one conclusion, and that is that Iran intends to develop Nuclear weapons.


- Er, yes they can.

They can in view of all the actual evidence and all the other known elements that make up this story.

Continuing IAEA compliance (going far beyond the terms of the treaty) and monitoring for years on end for a start (monitoring that is still going on 24/7 despite the chatter about seals being broken etc etc).

Things like the best and most informed expert assessment ('intel' that has been informed by the Iraqi failures no less) that says Iran is at least 10yrs away from a bomb (if they are actually trying to make one now).

Things like knowing how many centrifuges Iran has and what level of enrichment is suitable for power plants and nuclear weapons (which is not the same at all.......despite the blanket way in which this is usually described).


Perhaps you and others would like to have a Nuclear warhead with a made in Iran tag in order to believe otherwise, but fortunately for us, the world cannot afford to wait that long.


- What "warhead"?
This is plain speculative guesswork and utterly without any credible evidence.
That is the kind of 'imagine anything' game that asks for a negative to be proven. Which, handily for those warhawks, it cannot.

But let's be real about this.
This is purely about US power, Irans defiance of the US and the move from $US to the Euro.


No not really, in recent times Europe has always been hesitant to use military force to achieve a desired outcome. However I have no doubt, that as the layers of lies start to peel of Iran's claims, and as their intentions become clearer Europe will have no choice but to come to the same conclusion as those “Pro-War” hooligans.


- Then you are deluding yourself.
Europe did not and still does not see justification for the current ME war.

A new war (again based on no evidence and a ton of speculative lies) is never going to get public approval in Europe.

By the way, that applies even in the UK.

Thanks to the Iraq war we now have the benefit of an extension to our democracy, so thanks for that.
Due to the precedent now set and acknowledged as such there would now have to be a vote by our MPs in the British Parliament.

If you honestly imagine (especially after the last fiasco) that many of our MPs would vote for a new war, well, sorry matey but you truly are deluding yourself.


Sminkey, that's what we’re all trying to do, however one must at some point realize the fact that running around in circles forever chasing Iran is not going to accomplish anything. When that fact is realized there should be no hesitation to apply alternative means of “diplomacy”


- So, basically a rerun of Iraq then?
Continually demanding that they prove a negative until you imagine the world will agree to a new ME war?

Why not just be honest about it?
Why not just admit it and tell the world that you are never going to believe the Iranians anyway and just attack and invade them and accept your global pariah status?

Cos you will be absolutely on your own if you do (oh, well Israel will be there too I guess).


We should hope that is the case, I for one would not have it any other way


- Anyone who looks at any of Europe's history and concludes Europeans are in some way 'soft' is deranged.


Certainly, ask yourself, who has more at stake, Europe or Iran?


- In a Europe V Iran situation?
Are you kidding me?

Iran obviously.

You want to know why?
OK, lets go with this.
If they had a small arsenal (cos you couldn't do anything large scale in secret) and if they were insane as to try and launch (without any actual testing) their small arsenal at a few European targets our response would be so terrible as to annihilate the Iranian nation
(Our response would be instant.
Do you honestly imagine any scenario in which the rest of Europe, post their attack, regrets retaliation?! Get real).

.....and the rest of the world, as all are plunged into global economic melt-down by the vast disruption and damage caused by the loss of some of the world's leading cities and economic centres, would applaud our actions.

Anyone who seriously imagines otherwise is, once again deluding themselves.

That is why it will not happen.


Is Europe's current leadership ready to call Iran’s bluff if they threaten Nuclear War if a specific goal of theirs is not achieved?


- Iran hasn't even got the weapons never mind the fantasy of threatening nuclear war.


Also, when I said it gives them leverage, I meant that actions speak louder then words. If Iran realizes we wont back up our words, then they lose their value.


- Sorry Westy but this is a ludicrously 'topsey turvey' scenario.
Only the seriously deluded imagine Iran could or would seriously attempt to threaten the existent nuclear powers.

It wouldn't be like the cold war and any sort of 'balance of terror' you know.

[edit on 31-1-2006 by sminkeypinkey]


DRX

posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 06:10 PM
link   
Before every war begins you must prepare.
The first thing that is always prepared is the public mind.
Watch the prez tonight begin the process. The controlled
media will do the rest.



posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey

I actually posted up a UK news outlet's story about this.
The source of the 'document' is far from clear and I see there is little acknowledgement to the fact that the Iranians provided this 'evidence' to the UN's IAEA people themselves.
We already know from US leaks that the USA has tried to pass on and provide Iran with nuclear bomb details (even if they were said to lead them down false alleys).

Convenient timing, I will say that though.



Your first mistake here is in reference to the Channel 4 article you linked to earlier. That was a story about a mysterious laptop with potential nuclear related files on it. That is a totallly different matter. This, on the other hand, is about a 1 1/2 document given to the IAEA by Iran last week.




VIENNA, Jan 31, 2006 (AFP) - The Iranian government has handed over to the International Atomic Energy Agency a document whose only use would be in making nuclear weapons parts, the IAEA said in a confidential report obtained Tuesday by AFP.


AFP article

So tell me, after reading that above quote, do you believe that the IAEA is lying, and the Iranian government did NOT hand them this document? And if the IAEA is lying about this, then I have yet to hear Iran make a comment denying that they handed over any such document.
You know, if I were Iran and the UN stated that they received a damning file like that from the Iranian government, I think I'd be pretty swift about denying that the papers were ours. Don't you? They seem pretty chatty about everything else.

This has been reported by the AFP (French Press for those who do not know) and the AP, both agencies have seen the full report, before it will be made public.

This is a document, given to the IAEA by the Iranian government, which the IAEA says that its "only use would be in making nuclear weapons parts" does not belong in any energy based atomic program.

You have either:
(a) Not bothered to actually read anything regarding this and made your own assumptions.
or
(b)You have read the reports but are simply unwilling to accept them, regardless, simply because it is too strongly opposed to what you want to believe, and you would rather present any alternative, no matter how incredulous, than accept this as the truth.

Either way, its quite sad.

[edit on 31-1-2006 by rangeroftheeast]



posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 07:40 PM
link   
Sminkey, we can do this all day long, however the fact will remain the same, Iran intends to develop Nuclear weapons. I can see that, and in light of recent action I suspect the UN Security Council also sees that.


- Na matey, what you mean is that their anti-Israeli/Jewish comments (and their funding and hosting of terror groups) goes unreported or is played down and are not being hyped into a cause for a new ME war, hmmmm?


Matey you would have some evidence to support that claim, correct? I don't know what you’re on about claiming that Iran's views on Israel are a “cause for a new ME war”, they are not. Iran’s Nuclear Program is.


Which countries' nationals was it that 'did' 9/11 again, hmmm?


I don't see what this has to do with the topic, I will say though that a peoples actions don't always reflect their governments position, however a Presidents policies do.


But excuse me whilst I point out that they already act (and have for years acted) "in a manner contradictive" to their President.

(Are you another one who really does need to get their head around the idea that the US version of President is not universal?)


Their current President was only elected recently, as such they have not done anything contradictive to his statements. You surely don't believe that an Iranian president would be allowed to continue if he was in direct conflict with Ali Khamenei, do you?


Because they have had that capability for years and years and done nothing and never gave anyone the slightest indication they ever would do anything.

Which makes the idea of imminent threat absurd; wouldn't you say.


Well, they have engaged in indirect action against Israel for years and years. Also, when I read this statement I cracked a slight smile. This type of thinking baffles me, how can you not a consider recent statements from Iran's President as a “slight indication:?

There are ways in which a populous can be protected from chemical or biological weapons, however Nuclear weapons are far harder, if not impossible to protect against.
Can Iran ensure that Israel will be destroyed by chemical weapons before its soil is crystallized. Also, considering the size of Israel I would think two dozen Nuclear Weapons depending on their yield would be sufficient for whatever Iran has in mind.

Sminkey, can you define to me what to you would consider imminent danger? I only ask because to me if Iran is indeed attempting to acquire Nuclear Weapons then they would be in violation of the NTP and should be stopped. I don't think considering Iran actions with Nuclear Weapons should matter, simply the fact that they are attempting to acquire them should be enough reason to act.


- .....and the UN are set to make enquiries about it.

...Convenient timing, I will say that though.


You certainly don't think the IAEA would be fooled by a document such as that, do you? Also, it may be convenient timing, depending on your point of view, but I see it as reaffirming my initial point that Iran's true intentions will slowly become known, and that its lies will start to catch up with it.


They can in view of all the actual evidence and all the other known elements that make up this story.

Continuing IAEA compliance (going far beyond the terms of the treaty) and monitoring for years on end for a start (monitoring that is still going on 24/7 despite the chatter about seals being broken etc etc).


You are in serious delusion if you think Iran has complied with everything the IAEA has asked it to. The IAEA will release an assessment on Iran on February 2nd, you will see by that report just how much Iran has cooperated with IAEA. I will post it on here as soon as they release their findings.


Things like the best and most informed expert assessment ('intel' that has been informed by the Iraqi failures no less) that says Iran is at least 10yrs away from a bomb (if they are actually trying to make one now).

Things like knowing how many centrifuges Iran has and what level of enrichment is suitable for power plants and nuclear weapons (which is not the same at all.......despite the blanket way in which this is usually described).


I only ask that you look up the Arak Heavy Water Nuclear Power Plant (IR-40), it is capable of developing enough weapons grade plutonium each year for one to two bombs. It is scheduled for limited production capability in 07 and full producing shortly after that. The IAEA has asked Iran to stop construction of this reactor, but what has Iran done? Refused, of course.




February 29, 2004


February 27, 2005

In his briefing to the IAEA Board of Governors on March 1, 2005, Pierre Goldschmidt, IAEA Deputy Director General and Head of the Department of Safeguards, said Iranian officials have, "indicated that the Heavy Water Research Reactor (IR-40) project is progressing."

The IAEA board, in its September 2004 resolution, called on Iran "as a further confidence-building measure, voluntarily to reconsider its decision to start construction of a research reactor modified by heavy water."

New satelllite imagery obtained by ISIS from Space Imaging and DigitalGlobe supports the Iranian statement and other statements of unnamed sources that, "Iran has laid the foundations for the research reactor at Arak," as reported by Reuters on March 3, 2005.

Arak Reactor



- What "warhead"?
This is plain speculative guesswork and utterly without any credible evidence.
That is the kind of 'imagine anything' game that asks for a negative to be proven. Which, handily for those warhawks, it cannot.


Of course its speculative guesswork, it was a hypothetical example that I used to illustrate my point about why your standards for credible proof are unrealistic.


But let's be real about this.
This is purely about US power, Irans defiance of the US and the move from $US to the Euro.


Now this is “plain speculative guesswork”

As I recall all five permanent members of the Security Council are working together on this issue, and it has been the so called EU3 that for some time now have taken the lead in this matter.


A new war (again based on no evidence and a ton of speculative lies) is never going to get public approval in Europe.

By the way, that applies even in the UK.


Then that is truly sad, to let past actions influence a different situation that is a very real danger will only do a disservice to Europe.

However we will have to wait and see if that will be the case, because the only one lying here is Iran, and that is becoming clearer and clearer with each and ever passing day. By the way, military support from Europe would help but you and I know it will not be a deciding factor in US military policy.


Why not just be honest about it?
Why not just admit it and tell the world that you are never going to believe the Iranians anyway and just attack and invade them and accept your global pariah status?


Iran has had ample opportunity to accept measures that would benefit them and the International Community, they have refuses those measures and in the process have made it harder for the world to believe them.

The US does not want to invade Iran, we only want to stop Iran form acquiring Nuclear Weapons, and if we do that then we will have done this largely ungrateful world a service.


- Sorry Westy but this is a ludicrously 'topsey turvey' scenario.
Only the seriously deluded imagine Iran could or would seriously attempt to threaten the existent nuclear powers.

It wouldn't be like the cold war and any sort of 'balance of terror' you know.


Actually, you are quite wrong on that, North Korea has proved that even a handful of nuclear weapons will force Nuclear Powers to rethink their strategy. Not because those Nuclear Powers fear for their existence, but because they might not think a city or two of theirs is worth the trouble. And that my friend is known as Nuclear Blackmail.



posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
What I can't work out is how come there's meant to be this scary threat from a couple (hell for the sake of argument lets imagine they get two dozen) of nuclear weapons launched by missile at Israel and yet the far more feasible attack by a couple of hundred with chemical and biological weapons just gets ignored.

Why?
It's obvious.

Because they have had that capability for years and years and done nothing and never gave anyone the slightest indication they ever would do anything.

Which makes the idea of imminent threat absurd; wouldn't you say.


Wow... I dont think anyone realizes this. You are right on this.
____________________________________________________

I say Iran would/will make nukes because Iran has an abundance of energy resources, with reserves of natural gas second only to those of Russia and substantial oil reserves. Why would it need nuclear power plants? To help slow down global warming
???

It can also be said that the Government of Iran supports Terrorists in Iraq and also Palestine/Isreal. This is with out a doubt true. This is prolly why they should not have nukes yet. (yes I said yet)

Isreal is just afraid of nukes going off on their land so they are pushing on us us for war... And like somone already said, a war with Iran would help the U.S economically in the near future. So expect a war!

But really all Iran needs is just a revolution, hopefully a peaceful one. We should be supporting this and not dropping bombs on them, but covertly support the liberal uprise!
____________________________________________________

I would also like to say that our government has supported Terrorists before. (when it's convenient for us)... We Supported Bin-Laden, hell... I believe the Saudis tried to hand him over to us and we wouldnt even take him (prior to 9/11)

And we also looked the other way when Saddam used chemicals on Iran. and im sure we have done many many more things that im not even aware of! Maby people around the world need to stand up to their own governments before they get us all killed.







[edit on 31-1-2006 by Tasketo]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join