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.


Okay, WHY is Iran a threat?

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 10:37 AM
I don't really like to get into political discussions because nobody wins.
But, I really think our own distruction will be because the media has made it so.
I'm a Canadian and this is an example on how the U.S. media spins events to there favor. When the Canadian elections took place there was an issue on trade and soft wood lumber. The U.S. has agreed to certain rules and they have broken them. The Canadian Government brought it to the courts and won! Yet the U.S. still won't acknowlegde it. Now this doesn't mean much as for Iran. But when watching and reading the news here all our government wanted was for things to be right. The U.S. spun this off as the Canadian governemt bashing the states because of the elections and they should be careful in doing so....

Elections or not they can't do that (or maybe they can and do)

Not once in the media have I herd the real reason why Canada was saying that and it was made out to be a political threat by Paul Martin (who lost by the way)

So all in all
The things you see and read in the media aren't always even close to the truth. Any good story teller will try to make a hero out of there own. I don't live in Iran or Isreal so I can't make these out landish comments above.

Its amazing all that is lost in translation and as seen on many boards here how quike things are taken out of context.

All I know is if someone came into my home and killed my family and friends and tells me its a good thing. They better hope that they have more than one gun because I would do absolutly anything to protect my family. Including giving my own life....

remeber all its a political game... its like watching a game of chess and all humanity are the pawns....

posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 10:50 AM

Originally posted by Qoelet
the same Ayetollahs that promoted Ahmadinejad's rise to power can curtail him just as easily... and they won;t want to see the victories of the Islamic revolution reversed because of some far flung ideas about war bringing the Mullah (whatever his name was again) back to smite the Sunni and avenge Shia martyrdom (from like... the 1400s)...

And why precisely do you think this? The ayatollahs are also religious radicals and "true beleivers". Heck, they are the ones labeling the US as 'the great satan', not ahmadinijad. The apocalyptic cult aspect hardly only comes from him in iran.

How many destructive and generally economically damaging policy lines have past Israeli govts pursued

This is entirely irrelvant. Israel is not a threat to the United States. Isreal hasn't declared that the US government is the dupe of Satan.

If Ahmadinejad goes too far, he will get the chop... too many people in Iran (ayahtollahs included) remember what long protracted wars of attrition are like

The situtation with the mullahs is different. Fighting a long protracted war over a political ideology is one thing, fighting against the representative of all that is evil in the universe and at the right hand of God Almighty is another thing. The mullahs didn't create a secular state based upon koranic traditions, they created a theocratic state based upon the religion itself, they made the religion the state because they beleive in the religion, they beleive in the occultation of Mohamed Mahdi and his return and aren't going to say 'go screw yourself Mahdi and Allah' simply because they are tired of 'fighting'.

Maybe instead of fighting the whole friggin world over oil we

The oil aspect here is irrelevant. Iran signed an international treaty to get nuke tech in exchange for permanently being open to inspections from the international community and an eternal promise to never use that tech to make weapons. They have consistently meddled with the inspections and rulings of the international community on this matter and made certain aspects of their programme secret. This is unacceptable, even if they aren't in reality building nuke weapons. And the reality is that....of course they are plotting to build nuke weapons, thats why they've put the command of the nuke programme under the ambit of the radical Revolutionary Guard, thats why they are willing to risk international sanctions, and thats why they didn't flinch when the russians, who were helping them build the civilian and power generating aspects of the programme pulled out.

ctually Bush has claimed that he speaks to god, and that god speaks thru him...

most christians, hell most religious people in general, beleive that they speak to god upon prayer. There is a big difference bewteen that and having policy based upon the un-occultation of Mohamed Mahdi.

posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 11:06 AM

The oil aspect here is irrelevant.

How is that true? Its very "comfortable" to say that they are trying to build nukes and it is our duty and the worlds duty to stop them. We beat the war drums in their direction, but let me ask you this. North Korea very well HAS nukes, they have threatened us directly. How come we're not all hot and heated over that? It just seems to me more and more that Iraq was mearly a jump off point. Why was there no exit strategy for iraq? Simple.. there was never a plan to "exit". It was just a stepping stone to Iran, Syria. Why? Oil. I personally believe it has to do with them switching away from the $.

Iran, wether they had, want or are making a nuke would be completely psychotic to use it. If they even began to "warm up" a nuke you can bet that Israel would be on them in a heart beat.


posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 12:52 PM
The Iran/NK comparison exposes the real reason for the push for war.

Like Iran, NK is governed by a fanatical ideology, and is openly hostile to the US and US allies. Like Iran, NK has a long track record of issuing threatening statements and bellicose rhetoric (in this regard they make Iran look like pussycats). Like Iran, NK has the power to attack nearby US allies with ballistic missiles.

And the differences? Unlike Iran, NK actually has nuclear weapons in it's arsenal. Unlike Iran, NK actually has a military capable of inflicting significant damage on it's neighbor South Korea. And unlike Iran, NK has no easily accessable oilfields.

posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 01:27 PM

Originally posted by DerekJR321

The oil aspect here is irrelevant.

How is that true?

Because the oil aspect has allways been there and isn't a precipitating event. Other countries have oil too and aren't receiving pressure like this either.

Its very "comfortable" to say that they are trying to build nukes and it is our duty and the worlds duty to stop them.
It has nothing to do with duty. Its about self-preservation.

We beat the war drums in their direction, but let me ask you this. North Korea very well HAS nukes, they have threatened us directly. How come we're not all hot and heated over that?

They're next.

It just seems to me more and more that Iraq was mearly a jump off point.

Shoudl it be a surprise to anyone that the three countries listed as the "Axis of Evil" are going to be attacked, one by one?

Iran, wether they had, want or are making a nuke would be completely psychotic to use it.

Its equally pyschotic to not give in to the IAEA, yet they are doing that. There is only one thing that will prevent war between the US and Iran, that is complete cooperation with the IAEA and totally open and transparent nuke inspections. They're not doing that.

And the differences?

Iran is surrounded by two countries occupied by the US, Iraq and afghanistan. On the other border is Pakistan, governed by a military dictator that is an ally of the US and on the other border is an enclosed sea. Iran is also not yet in possession of but not far away from having a nuke. Which is more urgent and more unstable? Iran or N.Korea? If N.Korea already has a nuke, whats the urgency?
That is why Iran is next. Why should the US fight Iraq, Iran, and N.Korea in one giant simultaneous conflagaration? Even in WWII the focus was europe, then the pacific.

posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 01:32 PM
Thank you xmotex. Nail on the head is all I can say.

And for the other post.. if Iran is next.. don't you think some other fanatics (say NORTH KOREA) could use that time to strike against us? Think about it.. our ALREADY stretched lines going into a third front? They would most certainly have to enact a draft just to be able to sustain the numbers needed. And then what happens after we walk over Iran? Are we going to occupy them like Iraq?

IEAA, Nukes... fine. Great. It's most certainly not in my control to stop a war from happening. My opinion means nothing. I just hope that if we indeed DO go to war with Iran, Bush has some sort of a plan this time around.


[edit on 1-2-2006 by DerekJR321]

posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 06:12 AM

how quick you are to make out things as 'irrelevant'... because of your belief of various percieved escalated threats against the US.

Israeli policy is not irrelevant to this discussion my your terms as the same policies and US support for them has jeapordised the security of US citizens and US foreign policy objectives... as for oil being irrelevant...

NO COMMENT - it's not even worth it...

Europe and Israel and US allies in the region are at risk from this situation far more than the US... and the risk is more from escalating a situation unncessarily for cheap political gains rather than percieved nuclear first strike from a state which is in the proverbial nuclear dark ages...

when they start developing Topel M style MIRVS then I'd worry... and only a little bit...

anyhoo... isn't the US developing a super-fantastic missile defence system? *s'n-word'*

...and are my comments about Pakistan in this thread 'irrelevant'? Much of that establishment is plenty finding the US the great satan yes? *more s'n-word's*

Although in response to another comment made about NKorea not having oil...

the only reason the US or S Korea could never dare attack the North is because forgetting about the Nukes for a mo... there is so much Nkorean conventional artillery in range of Seoul that within the first 10 minutes of any conflict, just under half of the city would be destroyed killing just over a million odd people... nothing about oil here... "it's irrelevant"


new topics

<< 1   >>

log in