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.

 

Security Council sets a 30 day deadline

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mehran

Originally posted by skippytjc

Originally posted by Mehran
what are they going to do after 30 days. I remember this a few months ago where the U.N. gaved us the same offer saying you got the same amount of time to reply or else, which infact nothing happened at all. The best they could do is place sanctions * which may i add two countries you should know about China and Russia
*. *shrugs* ouch please no more sanctions!. It is ruining our economy and the country


Im glad this is all a joke to you, because it’s not to the rest of the world.

Your people are going to face much suffering as the result of your government’s hard line stance on nuclear weapons.

I hope you live through the consequences of your leaders actions...


oh no i am so scared. what happend to that air-strike on march.20 skippy?. the one you were so happey to talk about and the known feeling you had which you thought it will be the end of our nuclear program.


I fear you're as misguided as your leaders. I hope you find somewhere safe to hide when the bombs start falling because, trust me, they will if your country carries on down this path. I don't think you have anything to be laughing about. I only hope your government comes to its senses before it's too late...




posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 12:06 PM
link   
Actually Curio i have every right to laugh about this. All the hyped media and some of members in ATS been talking so long and saying how in march it will be end of Irans government or our nuclear program
. Now i can gave out the chance to speak out on those peoples face and tell them they were wrong.

[edit on 30-3-2006 by Mehran]



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 12:15 PM
link   
if I say

this is a

contrivance

how many would be informed enuf to agree

how many would disagree and not understand " contrivance "



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 12:37 PM
link   
Mehran,

Your fear should be of Israel not the US. Israel is sitting quiet and a nuclear Iran is a direct threat to Israel. So laugh all you want but when fully armed squadons of Israeli F-16s and Israeli Jericho Missiles come streaking across the sky don't come cryin' to me!
My guess is you'll be lookin' more like this
and this



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by JudahMaccabbi
Mehran,

Your fear should be of Israel not the US. Israel is sitting quiet and a nuclear Iran is a direct threat to Israel. So laugh all you want but when fully armed squadons of Israeli F-16s and Israeli Jericho Missiles come streaking across the sky don't come cryin' to me!
My guess is you'll be lookin' more like this
and this


they were suppose to launch on march and they didn't. Too bad it didnt work out huh?



Mod Note: One Line Post – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 3/30/2006 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 12:46 PM
link   
[edit on 30-3-2006 by digitalassassin]



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 01:12 PM
link   
I think it’s kind of silly for Mehran to be taunting anyone, and even more so for anyone to tell Mehran “I hope you don’t live near anything important”.

Well, aren’t we just macho as can be around here. It’s not the World Cup; it’s a possible war.

I’ll venture a wild guess that Mehran has nothing to do with Iran’s nuclear program and will probably not benefit substantially one war or another from their having or abandoning any desire for weapons.

I’ll also venture a guess that those who would taunt him aren’t going to be lacing up their boots to go make good on their talk if a war does break out.

Iran is taking a considerable and unnecessary gamble by resisting on the nuclear issue. If they want a peaceful program, they ought to make every practical concession to ensure that nobody tries to stop them. Failure to do so is nothing less than provoking a war with Israel, or possibly even America, and this is foolish.

Why fight a war when you don’t have to? Sure, it consolidates the ruler’s power sometimes. Sure, it makes you the big bad warrior in the eyes of militant organizations and governments. It also results in the unnecessary deaths of the people you are responsible to lead. It also retards your economic progress and thus your peaceful power to influence world affairs.

If Iran IS developing the bomb, the gamble is even greater. They are not them gambling simply on a conventional war or diplomatic problems, but if that gamble pays off and they get the bomb, they find themselves in a position where they must deal with the actions their government would then feel free to take.
War on neighbors to assert regional hegemony?
Consequent counter-insurgency missions not unlike what the US currently faces in Iraq?
Nuclear standoff with Israel?
A regional arms race that could sap their resources and cause them to potentially go the way of the USSR?

That is what they risk, but against what potential gain do they risk it? The ability to manipulate oil prices by a few percent for only a few years? If they drive the price to high, oil sands and alternative forms of energy become more economical and the demand for their oil will begin to diminish rapidly in the next decade. Even if they shear the sheep rather than skinning it, it’s only a matter of time until China, Europe, and America take themselves off of oil; I doubt oil will be very strong 20-30 years from now, and that will leave Iran right back where it is now, minus the oil.

The smart play for Iran, as I see it, is to forsake the weapons- let China come in as the hero of the day and work out a compromise that gets Iran a peaceful nuclear program with no hidden weapons program, and in return demand UN pressure on Israel. Instead of spending money on weapons, spend the money on infrastructure to build a stable economic future for Iran.

The right diplomatic and economic plays right now, especially if Iran can reorganize its policy in such a way as to become the voice of region and the wielder of the purse strings to its neighbors, would give Iran far more than a nuclear weapon ever could. Nuclear weapons have one fatal flaw: you can only use them once. What good is a foreign policy dependent entirely upon nuclear bluffing?

I think the smart thing for both sides of this issue to get behind is promoting peaceful progress, not threatening wars.
The things Iran needs to do are unlikely to be done under threat.

If someone called you on the phone and said "if you try to get a gun I'm going to kill you" (as opposed to "if you don't get a gun I'll help you with your problems") would you trust them, or would you try to get to a gun before they could get to you?

I'm not on Iran's side, but I can see their side. Both sides had better smarten up.



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 01:14 PM
link   
Mehran, no offense partner, but this aint a funny issue at all. And theres an old saying where I'm from, "we laugh at what we secretly fear." Think about that.

You know if the US wanted to take out those facilities they could have already, youre a smart guy and you know this. Politics just delay the inevitable in my opinion, and this case is no exception. It just looks good to play by the rules(meaining to go through the UN), just as I feel that Irans President feels it makes him look good to his people to be bold and stand against the wishes of the world. But when his time is up, how will he look then? I dont need to answer that, because you are smart enough to answer that for me.



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 01:21 PM
link   
If the discussion in this thread stays on the current course of One Line posts with off topic taunts and gameplay, it will be closed and T&C violations will be dealt with accordingly.

The topic of this discussion is:
Security Council sets a 30 day deadline

Thank you.



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 01:57 PM
link   
Please don't close it, you'd rather remove some of the childish posts.



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 04:21 PM
link   
Irrespective of whether one is in favor of, or opposed to sanctions (or more), I don't think we have to worry about this yet. Everyone - including the U.S. - has endorsed a "graduated response," which means that this is just the first minute gesture in a series of escalating actions on the part of the U.N. Since this is the first gesture, and since it is not legally binding under international law, I sincerely doubt anything bad or good will come of it other than the small jump in oil prices it has precipitated.

The question is: what is the end game? What does each of the players want out of this? We know the U.S. et al want Iran to submit to a wholly transparent, militarily non-viable nuclear energy program (at most). We know they are in favor of, eventually, applying sanctions if need be. We know China and Russia don't want that. But right now, since no tangible action is being taken, everyone is acting fairly unified. Where there will be dissention - and exponentially growing dissention at that, as we move forward - is the point at which decisions are made with respect to concrete action to be taken. I can foresee one of three scenarios happening. 1) Russia abstaining and China vetoing any resolution that includes sanctions. 2) Both Russia and China vetoing it. 3) Both Russia and China abstaining, and the resolution passing. Under no circumstances can I imagine China or Russia voting in favor of effective sanctions, however. Most likely such a resolution will not pass, and the U.S. et al will have to use unilateral sanctions to varying degrees, which will most likely have very little effect.

So, once that phase has played itself out, what then? That's the more difficult to answer question. With sanctions being largely ineffective (in terms of dissuading Iran, I mean), what will the U.S. et al do? Unless Iraq suddenly straightens itself out, or something happens to get more EU nations onboard, invasion is out of the question. That leaves two options: air strikes, and blockading the shipping lanes used by those with normal trade arrangements with Iran. Obviously, the latter would be unacceptable to China and Russia (even less acceptable than air strikes, in all probability, because it would mean directly interdicting Russian and Chinese vessels, among others), and it would probably be difficult to get most EU nations to back such a move as well.

That leaves air strikes. So, unless Iran submits, or Russia and China change their positions regarding sanctions, there will likely - at some point - be air strikes against Iran. Thus, the most vital questions anyone interested in how this might play out (for better or worse) should be, "How effective would they be?" and, "How might Iran or its neighbors react to such air strikes?" I think it's fairly impossible to answer those questions at this time with any degree of certainty.

The wild card in all of this is Israel. If Israel launches air strikes against Iran, either alone or with U.S. support, then all bets are off because it would almost certainly provoke some sort of response from Iran or its neighbors.

(For the record, I am opposed to any military action against Iran, for whatever that means).


[edit on 30-3-2006 by AceWombat04]



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 05:09 PM
link   
Wombat has a fairly good picture of the “clean” realistic options ahead of us, to the extent that matters which could go so badly can be considered clean. The blockade idea is pretty improbable unless Bush thinks he’s Kennedy (for the record, ‘You sir, are no Jack Kennedy!’). He must realize that the minute America starts messing with the flow of oil to China, Iran’s chances of winning go up dramatically.

There are potential complications to airstrikes if Iran is shrewd and bold enough. There are also even messier options which I wouldn’t necessarily write off from America, Israel, or Iran.

The options put forward by AceWombat could go messy in the following ways, as I see them.

*Set the enemy’s camp ablaze:
The US executes air strikes, and Iran launches missiles at our forces in Iraq, then begins mobilizing. Their
missiles would be of limited effectiveness if the origin and past performance of those weapons is a reliable indicator, although that is not 100%.

The Shahab missiles are an evolution of the Scud missile- notoriously easy to shoot down, and less than perfect for accuracy. These newer, longer range variants have no combat history to my knowledge, and limited testing history. Seersucker (a Silkworm spinoff) cruise missiles proved incredibly inaccurate when Saddam fired them in 2003.

There would probably be casualties, but no critical damage to US combat power. Iraqi civilian infrastructure would be the most logical target, as a humanitarian disaster in the Sunni areas would provoke increased insurgent activity if not responded to effectively and quickly.

Although less politically viable, doing the same in the South as well as Kuwait (especially to transportation infrastructure) would be even better in a tactical sense, because the consequent disorder could strain US logistics to some degree.

*Pit China against America over the oil:
What I would probably do if I were a radical Muslim or an Iranian Nationalist, is hit the oil fields in Saudi, Kuwait, and UAE, as well as the ports in those nations, with every missile, aircraft, slingshot, and kitchen sink I could get my hands on, then promise China that their oil flow won’t stop or be increased in price as long as they don’t let America invade.

China is then in a pretty pickle- mad as hell at Iran- but pickled no less. They can risk a war with America and hope that America blinks first (and if we do blink first, they’d make a quantum leap past us economically in no time flat), or they can say “feast or famine” and get behind the war effort, stomaching the higher oil prices for a time.

This option is most potent if multiplying events pan out, such as Venezuela trying to use its oil for leverage, Russia trying to make a profit/power grab with its oil, or terrorists damaging Russia’s oil infrastructure.

This is a “laugh now, cry in 5 minutes” option, but America would never be the same again. If you’ve got the patience to look forward to a non-America influenced world 50 years down the road, this is your option.

*Last and probably least likely- Iran may just hit Israel if we airstrike them and let the chips fall where they may. It would send the middle east back to 1973 virtually overnight, but it wouldn’t kill America or save Iran. This is basically contingent upon Iran not trying very hard.


Those are the worst case scenarios for airstrikes. Don’t write off America going in on the ground, even if it costs us the volunteer military and anarchy in Iraq. Don’t necessarily expect us to rely on European support even. America has shown a disturbing tendency to leap before it looks.

Don’t write off Israel being the one to attack, and in Allah knows what fashion. I think if this happened, Iran might reason (incorrectly) that their best option is to attack through Iraq on the ground, assuming that they have a chance of winning, and that Israel won’t be able to use tactical nukes in any proximity to US troops. All this does is get Iran’s teeth kicked in an unconventional war- and makes the US public at least partially blame Israel for however many casualties result- possibly in mid hundreds, or at worst, low thousands. War of miscalculation option.

I suppose Iran could even make the above miscalculation preemptively, thinking that they have a chance to overrun America in Iraq BEFORE we gear up to come for them. I don’t think it would work- it would be contingent on us fighting badly more than on them fighting well. They might try it though. Military writers have been warning since 1992 that nations shouldn’t just dig in when an attack is coming, and that America shouldn’t anticipate them to.


Any way you slice it, the end has to look like this:

Iran doesn’t have the facilities needed to make nuclear weapons.
The oil keeps flowing as at present.
America doesn’t try to occupy Iran.
Israel stays out.

The violation of any of those conditions will greatly enhance the probability of a catastrophic end, in most cases meaning a major, possibly nuclear war, or at the very least a radical and possibly dangerous sudden shift in American politics (in the worst case scenario a revolt- which is every bit as dangerous as one in Russia, if not more so).

For these reasons, complete non-action is a possibility, Russian or Chinese economic pressure to stop Iran is a possibility after escalation begins, and airstrikes are a strong possibility, although one that could potentially result in a crisis if Iran reacts too strongly.

There are no safe options here, except for America, China, and Russia, and Europe to realize together the grave dangers on all sides and work out a BINDING peaceful answer, with the understanding that if Iran decides to commit suicide, the Security Council members must decide to fight together, rather than against one another- because that WILL be the choice they have to make if things go south.



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 05:40 PM
link   
I think Russia has more up their sleeve than it would seem. Consider that Russia had a great thing going with Iraq and we ruined it. Now, a very short time later, we are going to go in and do the same thing to Iran? Now that we are perceived as being weakened in Iraq, Russia thinks it has the chance to stop us that it didn’t have pre-Iraq. I see Israel getting involved, Russia attacking American troops in Iraq and Israel simultaneously, and Russia licking its very large wounds in a matter of days. Hell, I can even see Israel burning Russian equipment/fuel for the next few years (hint
)

Stranger things have happened.



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by swesais
Well boys and girls get your self armed!!!Only about 30 days till its all will start!!!

Mod Note: One Line Post – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 3/30/2006 by 12m8keall2c]



Originally posted by T0by
Well here we go again



Mod Note: One Line Post – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 3/30/2006 by 12m8keall2c]



Originally posted by Mdv2
You might be right Mehran, we'll see.

Mod Note: One Line Post – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 3/30/2006 by 12m8keall2c]





Originally posted by Mdv2

Originally posted by swesais
Well boys and girls get your self armed!!!Only about 30 days till its all will start!!!


Armed against what? If you prefer to write such a childish message, please specify.



Hey.
You missed one.



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 03:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by JudahMaccabbi
Mehran,

Your fear should be of Israel not the US. Israel is sitting quiet and a nuclear Iran is a direct threat to Israel. So laugh all you want but when fully armed squadons of Israeli F-16s and Israeli Jericho Missiles come streaking across the sky don't come cryin' to me!
My guess is you'll be lookin' more like this
and this


If Israel did that they themselves would be wiped off the earth by every Arab country in the world. Personally I don't think anyone should have them. One of the worst inventions ever made. They serve no useful purpose except the total destruction of the human race. Because once a country has used them once they will use them again. Nobody is knocking on Israels door and saying give us those nukes or else. Their nuke program is illegal and they did not sign the NPT. So why aren't we issuing UNSC resolutions on Israel??? I think we all know the answer to that one. The simple truth is Bush's approval ratings have been heading to the crapper for a while now and are at their lowest. He needs this or another terrorist attack to bolster his support and that of his party. Election year you know. Gone are the days of kissing babies and handing out bumper stickers to get support for office. Start a war to get support now



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 04:31 AM
link   
This war is inevitable... If diplomacy takes to long for the US, the Bush admin. will create another 911, just like last time, only blame it on Iran. At least the US is trying to work with the UN this time. Iran is not budging on its uranium enrichment, and already conducting major military excercises. If events keep unfolding as they have been, in cunjunction with Russia and China backing Iran, the possibility of a nuclear WWIII is not impossible.



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 05:14 AM
link   
DEEZNUTZ,

What is Illegal about Israel's nuclear weapons? Israel has not signed the NPT and therefore are not in violation of it. India and Pakistan are two other nuclear states that also did not sign the NPT.
Iran signed the NPT, received nuclear know how as part of the treaty and are now violating it by enriching uranium for weapons. If it wasn't for weapons then they would have not enriched it into solid metal form but into gaseous form. If it wasn't for weapons they would have agreed to allow Russia to enrich the uranium for them, if it wasn't for weapons they would have not spread their facilites all over Iran in deep bunkers.
While Israel has not violated the NPT since it is not a signatory, Iran has!



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 05:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by JudahMaccabbi
DEEZNUTZ,

What is Illegal about Israel's nuclear weapons? Israel has not signed the NPT and therefore are not in violation of it. India and Pakistan are two other nuclear states that also did not sign the NPT.
Iran signed the NPT, received nuclear know how as part of the treaty and are now violating it by enriching uranium for weapons. If it wasn't for weapons then they would have not enriched it into solid metal form but into gaseous form. If it wasn't for weapons they would have agreed to allow Russia to enrich the uranium for them, if it wasn't for weapons they would have not spread their facilites all over Iran in deep bunkers.
While Israel has not violated the NPT since it is not a signatory, Iran has!


There is nothing illegal about it at all...then again we wouldn't know if anything was being done legally or Illegally since they refuse to have any type of oversight whatsoever.
What if Iran decides they just want to drop out of the NPT then? Shouldn't be a problem then? I will say this much at least for Iran, when they spoke of kicking out the Atomic Agencies inspectors they removed seals, and surveilance cameras. I think the last time someone even revealed anything about Israels nuclear program he was arrested for over 18 years and is still under house arrest to this day.Perish the thought of Surveilance cameras overseeing Israeli nuclear operations.



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 07:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThePieMaN

Originally posted by JudahMaccabbi
DEEZNUTZ,

What is Illegal about Israel's nuclear weapons? Israel has not signed the NPT and therefore are not in violation of it. India and Pakistan are two other nuclear states that also did not sign the NPT.
Iran signed the NPT, received nuclear know how as part of the treaty and are now violating it by enriching uranium for weapons. If it wasn't for weapons then they would have not enriched it into solid metal form but into gaseous form. If it wasn't for weapons they would have agreed to allow Russia to enrich the uranium for them, if it wasn't for weapons they would have not spread their facilites all over Iran in deep bunkers.
While Israel has not violated the NPT since it is not a signatory, Iran has!


There is nothing illegal about it at all...then again we wouldn't know if anything was being done legally or Illegally since they refuse to have any type of oversight whatsoever.
What if Iran decides they just want to drop out of the NPT then? Shouldn't be a problem then? I will say this much at least for Iran, when they spoke of kicking out the Atomic Agencies inspectors they removed seals, and surveilance cameras. I think the last time someone even revealed anything about Israels nuclear program he was arrested for over 18 years and is still under house arrest to this day.Perish the thought of Surveilance cameras overseeing Israeli nuclear operations.



The difference between Israel and Iran is that Israel is a western country and won't hit us, however Iran is a muslim country with a radical muslim as president, who rather sees the Jews die today than tomorrow.

It's a dangerous game to let lunatics play with this kind of weapons, as mentioned before, the main problem is, we can't control them as they don't allow inspections anymore.

You might be true by saying ''Israel does neither allow inspections'', but there's no reason to inspect their facilities, this in contrast to Iran's secret games.



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by JudahMaccabbi
DEEZNUTZ,

What is Illegal about Israel's nuclear weapons? Israel has not signed the NPT and therefore are not in violation of it. India and Pakistan are two other nuclear states that also did not sign the NPT.
Iran signed the NPT, received nuclear know how as part of the treaty and are now violating it by enriching uranium for weapons. If it wasn't for weapons then they would have not enriched it into solid metal form but into gaseous form. If it wasn't for weapons they would have agreed to allow Russia to enrich the uranium for them, if it wasn't for weapons they would have not spread their facilites all over Iran in deep bunkers.
While Israel has not violated the NPT since it is not a signatory, Iran has!


Their program was started by the US illegally in the 50's as no other nation wanted Israel to be the sole nuclear power in the Middle East. So the US slipped them some material under the table. For a country that refuses to allow any type of oversight that seems almost identical to the situation we're talking about.

And where is the proof that Iran is building weapons?? I've only heard Bush Admin repeat it over and over again. Seems I heard this one before about another country. "THey have WMD's, there is no doubt about it". I'm still waiting to see those ones. I'm not supporting Iran but as the saying goes "what's good for the goose is good for the gander". Apply the rules evenly and fairly to all countries.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join