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.

 

NEWS: Iran Prepares for US Airstrikes

page: 2
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by grover
Where did we get it? Bushes previous actions that where. Trumped up accusations against Iraq for one. Remember weapons of mass deception? Sorry mass destraction, sorry again, mass destruction? Remember the nukler cloud threat and all those tonnes of bio/chem weapons? Hey he even looked under his desk for them. (a joke he said...It was in very bad taste if you ask me considering people are dying for his lies) If Bush said the sky was blue, I would look out the window and check for myself.


yes, and during the buildup to actually going to war with iraq, bush specifically said over and over that military action was on the table. that hasnt even been hinted at with iran (except, as i mentioned, by hillary). you guys are the warhawks on this one. not bush....he is trying to make sure that the UN takes the lead this time.




posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 09:32 AM
link   
All that we need now is another "Pearl Harbor" and the draft bills in the Republic Senate will be passed, martial law enacted and b00YaH! Operation: INVADE Iran is UnDeRwAy.

Sounds alot like a certain popular movie that I saw last year. Oh wait, sounds like what happened almost 5 years ago! Fool me once, fool me twice?



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 11:51 AM
link   
I know what happened in the build up to his splendid little war and military action was the only thing on the table and his actions repeatly showed it ranging from his constant dissing of inspectors to his insisting that the documnets saddam turned over to the UN were lies (turned out there was more truth in them than in Powells presentation). Liberman and Hillery do not speak for all liberals or for the entire democratic party so don't even try and paint us as war hawks when it is your people who went around calling us traitors (one of the more polite things said) and were all but having an orgasm over the idea of war.



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 11:52 AM
link   
P.S. Bush has said repeatly that all options are on the table...that includes military.



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
Liberman and Hillery do not speak for all liberals or for the entire democratic party so don't even try and paint us as war hawks


then why isnt anyone from the democratic party trying to stop them? especially considering that hillary has specifically said over and over that bush's stance on iran is not tough enough. the funny thing is that she was part of the pro-iraq war frinzy as well.....and managed to switch sides pretty damn rapidly as the war became prolonged. go figure.



when it is your people who went around calling us traitors (one of the more polite things said) and were all but having an orgasm over the idea of war.


"my people." i love it when people make assumptions about my political stance. FYI i was against the iraq war, and i'm independent, not republican. that means that i can see the snakes on both sides of the political spectrum, unlike most liberals and conservatives here, who seem to be blinded to the mistakes made by their own parties.


Originally posted by grover
P.S. Bush has said repeatly that all options are on the table...that includes military.


lets see that quote please....with a source.

did you listen to the state of the union address? he wants iran to take the political solutions. he wants iran to abide by the agreements they have made so that they can have nuclear energy under the watchful eyes of the iaea. he knows that a war against iran would tax our military beyond its limits, and he knows that an attack from israel would most likely draw our military in iraq and afganistan into a greater middle east conflict...and he's made it clear that this is not what he wants to see. the man has made mistakes, yes. but he has learned from them, which is why france and other european nations are taking the lead on this issue....the big question is why is hillary trying to push us into a broader middle eastern war? just to be against the policies of bush in preparation for the 08 elections? big gamble she's taking with american lives.

[edit on 2-2-2006 by snafu7700]



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 05:11 PM
link   
The US/UK don't need that many troops when they have loads of nukes they could use. oh that's right if they used WMD's against a country they think has WMD's that would be hypocritical wouldn't it, and when was they last time western gorvernments acted like that!

To be honest, this doesn't really have anything to do with nukes, it's more to do with whats been mentioned, Oil, Money, Greed, Power but not in the order.

I believe China has an Oil/Gas line from Iran so any blockade wouldn't work as China would just ignore it.



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
Well ya know Bush has already offered the way out, in yesterdays rally he said that we respected the right of Iran to have nuclear (misprounced of course, ain't he cute)


First, i kind of find it hilarious that people want to bash anyone because they don't pronounce something perfectly yet most of these same people, something you see in these forums all over, have more grammar errors than a 5 year old child, appart from the slang used....


Originally posted by grover
power, just not nuclear weapons...wink wink. My guess is one of two things happened, the generals told him to back down, that we didn't have the forces to invade or China suggested that they might call in all their loans, which is, even though its never talked about, their BIG club they weild over us. I don't think an attack or invasion of Iran is even a remote possiblity by American (or even NATO) forces, the will just isn't there. Now Iseral is another story all together.


Since the beginning, of this problem with Iran, it has been Israel who has said that if negotiations don't work, and if they don't work fast, they will attack Iran's nuclear factories.

BTW, the latest report from the U.N. does state that they have proof that Iran wants to build nuclear weapons and not just nuclear power for peaceful purposes.


[edit on 2-2-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 09:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
Where did we get it? Bushes previous actions that where. Trumped up accusations against Iraq for one.


You mean the same accusations which came from most governments in the world?.... You mean the same accussations that authorities in Spain, Czech Republic and even Russia, among some others, provided evidence that Saddam was planning on making terrorist attacks on U.S. soil and other western targets and almost the same intelligence from every nation that said "Saddam had WMD"?..... are those the accusations you are talking about?....



Originally posted by grover
Remember weapons of mass deception? Sorry mass destraction, sorry again, mass destruction? Remember the nukler cloud threat and all those tonnes of bio/chem weapons?


Remember the tons of documents found in Iraq which dealt with wmd?... The lies from Iraq claiming since 1991 they did not have wmd yet we kept finding evidence that proved the congtrary and the regime of iraq had to retract and admit they had such wmd programs?....

Remember the empty chemical warheads that were found in Iraq, which sole purpose are for fitting the warheads with chemical weapons unless you think Saddam was planning on filling those up with candies and other goodies....



Originally posted by grover
Hey he even looked under his desk for them. (a joke he said...It was in very bad taste if you ask me considering people are dying for his lies) If Bush said the sky was blue, I would look out the window and check for myself.


I do agree that was in bad taste but i have seen other politicians do the same on similar situations

[edit on 2-2-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 10:16 PM
link   
off topic for a moment, since so many posts have been made about the WMD issue:

we all know, whether you want to admit it or not, that saddam had chemical and biological weapons, because

a. we (the US) sold it to him

b. it is well documented that he used them on the kurds.

however, in regards to the nuclear issues, i kind of feel sorry for the guy in a way. it has become pretty clear over the past couple of years through interrogation of his generals and through perusal of official iraqi government documents that he suspended his nuclear program after the first gulf war. the reason the world believed he had them is because he wanted the world to believe that he had them, due to his paranoia of shia dominated iran. he thought that a possible nuke program would keep iran at bay. this is why he played so many games with the iaea, and this is why the world believed that he had them.



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 12:55 AM
link   
Top Three Ways To Prepare For US Airstrikes:


  1. Take a vacation in Switzerland.
  2. Purchase body bags.
  3. Buy life insurance with no war clause.


There is no air defense system on Earth that is going to save yo little crackhouse when Unca Sam comes for you, Nuke Boys Nuke Boys.

The only viable option open for Iran at this point is absolute transparency.


[edit on 3-2-2006 by Chakotay]



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 01:48 AM
link   
10 years from a nuclear weapon? Perhaps if they are only trying to acheive it through enrichment vie hexaflouride gas...

Why is there no mention of the 40MW Arak heavy water research reactor? This reactor can produce 40 grams of plutonium a day! 5 months after that plant goes online it is possible to have enough plutonium for a weapon. Arak has been under construction for almost 3 years now... I gather it should be complete by 2007-2008



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 02:42 AM
link   
snafu7700, I hate it when this happens and threads are taken off topic, but i also hate it when people use threads like this one as excuses to bash at the U.S., and these same people try to sell again their preconceived ideas on the war in Iraq.

Whether people want to admit it or not, there was evidence that Saddam had a wmd program, even a nuclear program after the first gulf war, and his regime was trying to once again develop a wmd program up to the beginning of the war.

BTW, the country which sold most of the chemicals weapons to Iraq was Russia, along some other countries which included France, China and others, which was part of the reason why Saddam still owed $4 Billion, who knows how much money was already paid by Saddam to the Russian government for the weapons they were being provided by Russia for 20 years.

Now back to the topic in this thread. I agree with the member that said there was no evidence that says the U.S. is ready to strike at Iran. Israel is the one that said they will attack Iran if nothing is done about the regime trying to get their hands on nuclear weapons.

[edit on 3-2-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 02:41 PM
link   
What a better way to prove that you have something to hide, than to cover all your nuclear facilities with giant Anti-air guns.

Aside from making it obvious, they are also giving out the number of nuclear launch locations, as well as exactly where they are, assuming that the US intelligence dept can get ahold of that.

And... Russia is helping them? Here comes another cold war.



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 10:07 PM
link   
I think the US is bound to strike, Israel is probably going to force our hand. (they'll do it if we don't). I don't see a full scale invasion taking place, but we do have them sandwiched (them being Iran). The US can take out convention Iranian forced very easily. Iranian anti-aircraft defense are quite useless against cruise missiles and stealth bombers.

Think what you must, but there is a lunatic running Iran at the moment. He wants Israel 'wiped off the map' (his words) and he'll soon have the ability to do so.



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 11:52 PM
link   
Does anyone know the effectiveness of these TOR M-1 systems the russians have sold them? Do they actually have a chance of successfully repelling a u.s/ israeli air strike?

I find it ironic that the russians are backing referal to the UNSC while building iranian nucleur power facilities and supplying them SAM's to protect them all for the tune of god knows how much profit...

....just who's side are they on?

....Profit's side, it looks like



new topics




 
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join