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.

 

Cheney Rumsfeld & Wolfowitz behind Iran Nuclear Program

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 10:14 AM
link   
I find it very interesting that the same people that oppose any nuclear activities in Iran, were involved with Iranian nuclear program in the past.




U.S. endorsed Iranian plans to build massive nuclear energy industry
In 1976, President Gerald R. Ford signed a directive that granted Iran the opportunity to purchase U.S. built reprocessing equipment and facilities designed to extract plutonium from nuclear reactor fuel.
When Gerald Ford assumed the Presidency in August 1974, the current Vice President of the United States, Richard B Cheney served on the transition team and later as Deputy Assistant to the President. In November 1975, he was named Assistant to the President and White House Chief of Staff, a position he held throughout the remainder of the Ford Administration.[1]

In August 1974, the current Secretary of Defense, Donald H. Rumsfeld served as Chairman of the transition to the Presidency of Gerald R. Ford. He then became Chief of Staff of the White House and a member of the President's Cabinet (1974-1975)[2] and was the Ford Administration’s Secretary of Defense from 1975–1977.

The current President of the World Bank, Paul Wolfowitz served in the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency under President Gerald Ford.[3] Wolfowitz is considered as a prominent architect of the Bush Doctrine, which has come to be identified with a policy that permits pre-emptive war against potential aggressors before they are capable of mounting attacks against the United States.

According to Washington Post Staff Writer Dafna Linzer, “Ford’s team endorsed Iranian plans to build a massive nuclear energy industry, but also worked hard to complete a multibillion-dollar deal that would have given Tehran control of large quantities of plutonium and enriched uranium – the two pathways to a nuclear bomb. Either can be shaped into the core of a nuclear warhead, and obtaining one or the other is generally considered the most significant obstacle to would-be weopons builders.”

www.uruknet.info/


And Bush admin's nuclear double standard



Bush nuclear double standard

HAND OVER advanced nuclear technology to India, then threaten Iran with harsh measures--including a possible military strike--for pursuing its own nuclear program.

www.socialistworker.org...


some frequesntly asked questions:

Q1 Iran lies on huge oil reserves, they don't need nuclear energy:

during shah, Iran was exporting as high as 7 mil barrels per day, and had a plan to build as many as 20 nuclear reactors by yr 2000. And now iran oil exports does not exceed 4 mil barrels per day, and Russia is yet to complete her first reactor.

Q2 Iranian regime is a danger to the free world and must not be allowed to become nuclear?
on one hand, Shah's regime was a puppet government used to squeeze the Arab world from the East and Israel from the west, the twin pillars of US hegemony over the region’s peoples and resources.
on the other, Shah's was cruel to his own people and ordered to torture and execute thousands of people through his secret police SAVAK.

Q3 Iranian leader has publically claimed his desire to wipe Israel off the earth. the free world will not allow a man with this attitude have his finger on the trigger?

well, Ahmadinejad is in power for less than 9 months, and bush admin. opposition to iranian nuclear program existed during reformist khatami admin ( The same reformists that Bush vows support for ), nor ahmadinejad holds the real power in iran, there are three bodies acting independently under supreme leader's supervision, armed services are controled directly by supreme leader.
Iran has been an ideological supporter of resistance against Israeili zionists, and any such attempt to nuke israel will not only destroy islamic holy sites, will kill all palestinians, iran supports, as well as nuclear fallout that will impact Iran. The retaliation will be much worse.

If any iranian official is on this forum, reading my post,bud, my advice to you is "surrender is good, but don't"


INTERNATIONAL TRUTH SEEKER




posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 01:18 PM
link   
You're an idiot and an ideologue and I think everyone here would agree with me.



posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus
You're an idiot and an ideologue and I think everyone here would agree with me.


I suggest you re-read the posting rules here. Single sentence posts, and personal attacks are not permitted. Try to post on topic, and avoid making the people here the topic.

I thought it a fine, and perfectly rational post. America has double standards when it comes to the Nuclear Non Proliferation threaty. America will break the treaty to give tech to India, and not allow Iran to have what they are entitled too.

[edit on 8-3-2006 by Malichai]



posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus
You're an idiot and an ideologue and I think everyone here would agree with me.


Just brilliant insight once again.

Let's just nuke em, let's kill em all, glass parking lot, just nuke em!




Anyway, you shouldn't find it strange that these same guys helped them out in the past. Let's remember, the US govt used terror attacks in Iran in the 50s to get rid of the democratically elected Mossadegh and install the Shah, who consequently went to bloody theocracy there. They then sold weapons to Iran and Iraq in their war. No surprise for me.



posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 09:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeka

Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus
You're an idiot and an ideologue and I think everyone here would agree with me.


Just brilliant insight once again.

Let's just nuke em, let's kill em all, glass parking lot, just nuke em!




Anyway, you shouldn't find it strange that these same guys helped them out in the past. Let's remember, the US govt used terror attacks in Iran in the 50s to get rid of the democratically elected Mossadegh and install the Shah, who consequently went to bloody theocracy there. They then sold weapons to Iran and Iraq in their war. No surprise for me.


You got your order of events wrong. The US was supporting Iran before the overthrow of the Shah, at that point Iran became the enemy of the US and the US supplied Iraq. Iraq was the lesser of 2 evils at the time and the US felt that if Iraq could win the war that Iran might plunge into yet another revolution.



posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 09:50 PM
link   
Somebody needs to go to the ATS etiquette school.

This would be shocking, you'd expect it to be shocking, but its not. The deadly trio wont surprise me anymore.



posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 01:49 AM
link   
The point I'm trying to make is that the same guys who argue, u know, "look, they sit on huge oil reserves, Why do they need nuclear energy?" were in fact behind iranian nuclear energy program during Shah.


Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus
You're an idiot and an ideologue and I think everyone here would agree with me.

ya freakin idiot, we are trying to discuss some real issues here


RESPECT



posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 02:48 PM
link   
Wasnt that before the Islamic revoultion in Iran. And whats wrong with letting Iran having nuclear power Im sure the US can work out a deal with Iran. Iran is allowed to have nuclear power plants but must be inspected reguarly by the UN if Iran doesn't allow the UN to inspect or kicks Inspectors out or devlops nuclear weapons. The UN secruity council must intervene attack Iran and shut down those nuclear plants.



posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 02:51 PM
link   
shouldn't you be more worried about irans leader calling for Isreal to be wiped off the map ?

or north korea testin missiles ?

the US exporting ENERGY technologies in the 70's hardly seems like a hot button issue



posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by proprog
The point I'm trying to make is that the same guys who argue, u know, "look, they sit on huge oil reserves, Why do they need nuclear energy?" were in fact behind iranian nuclear energy program during Shah.


We were helping the Shah gain nuclear power because he was our ally. When the Shah was overthrown...we had to change our dealings and policy towards Iran. This is basic knowlage, I suggest you learn more about history before you try to convince others of your view-points.

-- Boat



posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeka
They then sold weapons to Iran and Iraq in their war. No surprise for me.


We sold weapons to Iraq; not Iran. We wanted to make sure that a Islamic Revloution did not spread to Iraq, and other states that we bought oil from like Saudi Arabia. So, Saudi Arabia and the U.S. were both helping Iraq. We DID NOT sell weapons to Iran; we were hoping they would be stopped.

-- Boat



posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boatphone
We sold weapons to Iraq; not Iran. We wanted to make sure that a Islamic Revloution did not spread to Iraq, and other states that we bought oil from like Saudi Arabia. So, Saudi Arabia and the U.S. were both helping Iraq. We DID NOT sell weapons to Iran; we were hoping they would be stopped.

-- Boat


Quick question:

When we supplied Iraq with weaponry, who was in power, Hussien? (My public edumacation fails me again!)

Also, if we tried to help stop crazy religious leaders from taking office in Iraq, how come we just took Saddam out? I thought his job was to keep the sects seperate (I also realize he's a jerk, but hey, I didn't put him there). I still don't understand why we nabbed him. There are plenty of far worse and far more dangerous leaders out there...

/ Just curious is all.



posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boatphone
We sold weapons to Iraq; not Iran.


Didn't you read about the Iran-Contra affair?

The Iran-Contra Affair (also known as "Irangate") was a mid-1980s political scandal in the United States. President Ronald Reagan's administration sold arms to Iran, an avowed enemy. At the time, Americans were being held hostage in Lebanon by Hezbollah, a militant Shi'a organization loyal to Ayatollah Khomeini.


en.wikipedia.org...


We were helping the Shah gain nuclear power because he was our ally.


Well, that's obvious, because the US and Britain staged a coup called Operation Ajax to put the Shah in there instead of the democratically elected, modern Prime Minister.

To use one of your own quotes...

This is basic knowlage, I suggest you learn more about history before you try to convince others of your view-points.


You misspelled knowledge by the way.

[edit on 9-3-2006 by Jamuhn]



posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 04:13 PM
link   
yowza,

there's a good old fashioned message board beat down !!!!




[edit on 9-3-2006 by syrinx high priest]



posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jamuhn
Didn't you read about the Iran-Contra affair?


The "Iran-Contra" affair lasted for only one year, 1986. We had been selling weapons to Iraq from 1982 to 1988. The "Iran-Contra" affair was a desprate grab to free Americans, and at the same time help our interests in South America.

Also, it was an intermediary that sold the weapons to Iran.



whereby an intermediary would sell arms to Iran in exchange for the release of the hostages, with proceeds made available to the Contras.





[You misspelled knowledge by the way.
[edit on 9-3-2006 by Jamuhn]


Sorry. Thanks for the pettifoggery.

-- Boat

[edit on 9-3-2006 by Boatphone]

[edit on 9-3-2006 by Boatphone]



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join