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.

 

Iran has modified the Sahab-3 to carry nukes – But they only want nukes for peace

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 11:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Crakeur

Originally posted by dgtempeThey are only trying to protect themselves from us.


you're kidding right?

this is a nation that refuses to recognize another nation in the region and has, repeatedly, called for their destruction. having them armed with nukes is a danger not a deterrent. This isn't like india and pakistan where they have them to balance out their threats. Israel has never once said they want to wipe Iran off the map. Israel has never said Iran doesn't have the right to exist. Israel is not a threat to Iran.

Iran didn't have to fear any attacks from the U.S. until they started this nuke thing and even now they should fear attacks from a UN force that would truly be made up of nations from around the globe. The US cannot and should not take the front seat on that attack.


Let's use the same "logic" for these countries...

- The US has the right to possess THOUSANDS of ballistic nuclear missiles, including hundreds which are long-range, in order to defend herself against the Ennemies of America, as well as its interests abroad. This, even if the US has refused at many times to recognize a foreign nation and waged war on it for dubious reasons (i.e. Iraq, Korea, Vietnam, Chile under the Allende government, Salvador under sandinista government. etc).

Right?

- Israel has the right to possess and eventually use nukes to defend herself against the Enemies of "jewish people" in Middle-East, even if the zionists first invaded a populated area and led aggressive military strikes against foreign neighboring countries (Syria and Egypt), and still refused to reconize Palestine as a free nation.

Right?

So then why Iran does not have the right to have military and nuclear potential to defend herself???

Oh, I know... Because they are MUSLIMS and not on the side of America and Israel!




[edit on 7/4/06 by Echtelion]




posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 07:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
So Fuhr86, your saying that in truth, Iran is indeed lying and that their peaceful intent nuclear program is a BS cover for their real intentions of acquiring and building nuclear weapons to equip those modified missiles?


Yes thats I think is happening. We have seen how the USA just goes into wars and invade countries. Iraq prime example. Can you blame Iran from wanting a deterent for if and when the United States comes after them. I dont see a problem with it. Iran should never have to use the nukes if they are not provoked.

If Iran does get the nuke and starts threatening Isreal or even un provoked attacks them, then we take Iran of the planet but until then Iran has complete justification in obtaining Nukes for defense.



posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 07:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
So you're saying they "owe" us a full explanation.

Look, they dont owe us anything. They havent threatened us. Bush provokes and countries react.


Well, technically Iran has threatened Israel. It is a long established policy of the United States to help protect Israel through the sale of arms, military technology and training. Long before George Bush came along, the U.S. has made many committments to assuring Israel's right to exist. Whether the president was Bush, Kerry or Clinton, the United States would be supporting Israel against foreign agression.



posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 07:42 AM
link   

So then why Iran does not have the right to have military and nuclear potential to defend herself???

Oh, I know... Because they are MUSLIMS and not on the side of America and Israel!


I think you have made quite an inflammatory and unjust statement. Do not get this mixed up with just religion, a similar occourance happened in N.Korea just the full extent of N.Korea's nucelar programme was only highlighted by them actually announcing nuclear capabilities. The same tensions were still present and hell peaople were even talking of war.

As for Iran.. The Middle East is still an unstable place.. Muslim countries openly declaring they want Israel wiped off the map. Get a trigger happy Iranian and his buddies and ...KABOOM the end of the world. Israel needs an upperhand or ace up it's sleeve to ensure the safety of Israel and her people.



posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Knights
As for Iran.. The Middle East is still an unstable place.. Muslim countries openly declaring they want Israel wiped off the map. Get a trigger happy Iranian and his buddies and ...KABOOM the end of the world. Israel needs an upperhand or ace up it's sleeve to ensure the safety of Israel and her people.


What, trigger happy Israelies or Americans can't exist???
Do Iranians have the monopoly on "evil" people??

For my part all nukes in every country should be destroyed. But that's only wishful thinking eh???



posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 09:14 AM
link   

For my part all nukes in every country should be destroyed. But that's only wishful thinking eh???


Yes.. i'm sure that would be the ultimate goal.. yet somehow I get the shady feeling if this did happen Israel would be gone in a flash.

IMO, nuclear weapons force a peace amongst nations. If say, China and the US esculate, i'm sure both nations would be reluctant to fight incase of nuclear warfare. Because Israel has such weapons, it gives them an enforced position.

And yes I would call Iran a rogue state. Publicly stating that you wish the destruction on a country and that you are building a nuclear arsenal.. how can that actually show a stable and responsible Government?!
I feel it has nothing to do with personal defence.. Iran isn't under threat from Israel or the US.. instead it is most likely the other way around.. but then again this is my opinion.



posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 09:37 AM
link   
you have got to be kidding me, i didnt ever bring race into it. im not the one that called jewish people a race. i know they are a religion. BUT because of the media and such they are shown as a race, and you are racist is your not with them. i have been called "racist" because i believed the israel was obtained illegally.

tell me why they didnt take kenya? tell me what reason they should have not to?
and why would they go into a land that wanted war with them? that actually wanted to kill them all off? they moved to the middle east knowing it would start a major problem, so why did we allow it? tell me why we allowed them present day israel and why they couldnt have taken kenya?



posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 09:57 AM
link   

From 1517-1917 Turkey's Ottoman Empire controlled a vast Arab empire, a portion of which is today Lebanon, Syria, and Palestine. During World War I (1914-1918), Turkey supported Germany. When Germany was defeated, so were the Turks. In 1916 control of the southern portion of their Ottoman Empire was "mandated" to France and Britain under the Sykes-Picot Agreement, which divided the Arab region into zones of influence. Lebanon and Syria were assigned (mandated) to France... and "Palestine" (today's Jordan, Israel and "West Bank") was mandated to Great Britain.
Because no other peoples had ever established a national homeland in "Palestine" since the Jews had done it 2,000 years before, the British "looked favorably" upon the creation of a Jewish National Homeland throughout ALL of Palestine. The Jews had already begun mass immigration into Palestine in the 1880's in an effort to rid the land of swamps and malaria and prepare for the rebirth of Israel. This Jewish effort to revitalize the land attracted an equally large immigration of Arabs from neighboring areas who were drawn by employment opportunities and healthier living conditions. There was never any attempt to "rid" the area of what few Arabs there or those Arab masses that immigrated into this area along with the Jews!


Israel was Jewish land!
And another interesting quote:


The Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza Strip were packed and ready to leave following their 1967 defeat. Suddenly the victorious one-eyed IDF General Moshe Dayan persuaded them to stay. This singular act stunned no one more than the Arab enemy himself who could not believe such an incredible manifestation of Jewish madness! After all, the Arabs knew what THEY would have done to the Jews if they had won! Dayan's plan was to educate them, offer them modern medical treatment, provide them with employment both in the West Bank, Gaza AND inside Israel Proper itself ... living amongst each other in hopes of building bridges to the Arab world. Israel is now paying dearly for this typically naive "Leftist" gesture. That "bridge" led to two Intifadas and world-wide Arab-Palestinian terrorism. From a frightened and defeated enemy, these "Palestinian" Arabs under Israel's jurisdiction turned into a confident, hateful and dangerous enemy now on their way toward forming a terrorist state determined to destroy Israel!


Much better than I could have put it!



posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Echtelion

Originally posted by Crakeur

Originally posted by dgtempeThey are only trying to protect themselves from us.


you're kidding right?

this is a nation that refuses to recognize another nation in the region and has, repeatedly, called for their destruction. having them armed with nukes is a danger not a deterrent. This isn't like india and pakistan where they have them to balance out their threats. Israel has never once said they want to wipe Iran off the map. Israel has never said Iran doesn't have the right to exist. Israel is not a threat to Iran.

Iran didn't have to fear any attacks from the U.S. until they started this nuke thing and even now they should fear attacks from a UN force that would truly be made up of nations from around the globe. The US cannot and should not take the front seat on that attack.


Let's use the same "logic" for these countries...

- The US has the right to possess THOUSANDS of ballistic nuclear missiles, including hundreds which are long-range, in order to defend herself against the Ennemies of America, as well as its interests abroad. This, even if the US has refused at many times to recognize a foreign nation and waged war on it for dubious reasons (i.e. Iraq, Korea, Vietnam, Chile under the Allende government, Salvador under sandinista government. etc).

Right?

[edit on 7/4/06 by Echtelion]



and no nukes have been used in any war since ww2


how long will we be able to say the same for Iran?




posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 10:47 AM
link   
britian looked upon it favorably, yet they offered kenya first. im still waiting for why they didnt take kenya?

also they started immigrating there. so i guess if alot of americans migrated to canada then canada will eventually be turned into american land by this logic. just because enough people move there does not mean that now it should be their land. that means that you become part of their country. if your american and move to canada...your canadian. i dont care which way you put it, if you move there as a permanent home, your canadian. so when the jewish people moved to palestine...it shouldnt have changed to a jewish state, rather all these jewish people are now palestinian (not as far as religion goes, but if we were to call this area palestien and it be a country, then these jewish people would be palestinian)

like i said if enough americans moved to a certain place, can we take it as a state of america and everyone, including the people that live there, be ok with it? thats called imperialism.

so jewish people move into the area after 1917, and keep doing so till after ww2, where enough of them live there to claim it their state now, the jewish state? im sorry but that sounds more like suttle invasion. did they pay for this land? did the palestinian people agree to having their land become the jewish state?

but anyway, why did they not take kenya? they wanted a jewish state, why didnt they take that? because they lived in israel 2000 years ago? because they have enough people in israel to call it theirs? i dont get it, why didnt they take kenya if they wanted there own state?



posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 11:05 AM
link   

britian looked upon it favorably, yet they offered kenya first. im still waiting for why they didnt take kenya?


Please provde a link to back up your claims.


also they started immigrating there. so i guess if alot of americans migrated to canada then canada will eventually be turned into american land by this logic. just because enough people move there does not mean that now it should be their land.


So by right then the Native Americans/Austrailians should be able to have their land back? Because at the end of the day you are all still British? Of course not.


but anyway, why did they not take kenya? they wanted a jewish state, why didnt they take that? because they lived in israel 2000 years ago? because they have enough people in israel to call it theirs? i dont get it, why didnt they take kenya if they wanted there own state?


You get offered land in your ancestors country and your own holy place, linking it to religion, and you turn it down for.. Kenya?! Right i'm sure many would do the same! The land was there and up for grabs.. many Arabs moved to the area to recieve medical care and live close because the Jews improved the area and settled.. what because the land was now improved people want it back?? Well I say the Indians should claim their land by right back, it's a simililar situation.



posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Echtelion
So then why Iran does not have the right to have military and nuclear potential to defend herself???

Oh, I know... Because they are MUSLIMS and not on the side of America and Israel!


You know, with some people, there are always racial issues, that everything pretty much revolves around race, correct Echtelion?

Pakistan is MUSLIM, they have nukes.
Oh, but they are on "our side."
Good escape clause there.
Personally, I can care less about "sides," whereas, it is a mandate for you and others. The issue here is continued proliferation.
Therefore, by logic, your raising the race or ethnic card was ludicrous, period.

Further, by your logic, every nation on this planet should have the right to acquire and/or build nuclear weapons, correct? It is that same logic that is heavily flawed.

How so?
Well, let me ask you this: which type world would be safer: a world where every nation has nuclear weapons (liberal prolifieration) or a world were the nuclear status quo (non- or restricted proliferation) is maintained?

A 'right' is not a guarentee and does come with restrictions, exemptions, exclusionary clauses, etc. The NPT gives every nation the right to acquire safe nuclear power for energy needs, not the right to acquire and/or build nuclear weapons. As such, your 'they have the right because someone else has them' argument is flawed, unfounded, childish, and unrationally based.






seekerof

[edit on 8-4-2006 by Seekerof]



posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 11:32 AM
link   
what was the point of this thread?. so what if we make ballistic missiles with even a longer range and that can target europe?. we have every right to do so. these missiles are for defence and a missile for longer range will mean for protection against other countries around the world. if the US touches iran or even gets close to it...i can quarantee you that the so called democratic iraq and afghanistan will be all over and this is no joke. wonder why we havent been air striked yet or attacked?. we control the shia population and will use it for our advantage incase an attack...you cant handle Iraq,Iran and Afghanistan at the same time. you see why there isnt even an attack?. we will keep making missiles and so on. just keep posting articles about shahab or our president i dont care. by the way we have MIRV capabilities so i think skippy should add that aswell in there.



posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 11:35 AM
link   
thanks knights for proving you dont read my posts, if you did you would see i had already provided proof that britian offered the jewish people eastern kenya first, and they declined it because they wanted israel.

also when it comes to war, yes then you take what you please, just be aware that your at war. you dont take their land then complain that they are attacking you. thats stupidity. youve claimed war on them by taking their land, regardless of what you want to call it thats what you did. in doing so you started a war. im tired of people complaining about terrorist and all, when we started this war by making sure the jewish people got israel. go back and read the article i posted. maybe you will read it this time and see the US backed them all the way to make sure they got israel. we started a war yet now we are angry that they fight back.

whether you want to start a war is completely up to you, just as long as you acknowledge you did start a war. you dont start a war, take the land, then complain when they fight back at you.



posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 11:39 AM
link   
It seems to me you are under the thought that 'we' are actually war mongering.. I'm sure no-one wants a war, in Europe or the US. I'm also certain that Iran does not want a war.. putting up a front yet in reality an attack would be devastating on both sides.

The fact that Iran may develop nuclear armaments is not ideal. The Middle East has many ongoing conflicts, a nation who may be prepared to use them is a risk none of us want to take.

This is not just a personal issue, it is a global issue concerning every single person, animal, plant on this globe. Is it really worth it in the name of 'defence'??

As an Iranian, what do you think of Israel as a country? Do you suspect war or something similar? Do you actually think your country will use missles as 'defence' or actually use them against Israel or European countries??



posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mehran
what was the point of this thread?. so what if we make ballistic missiles with even a longer range and that can target europe?. we have every right to do so. these missiles are for defence and a missile for longer range will mean for protection against other countries around the world.

Again, flawed logic.
If Iran has missiles that can hit as far as Europe, Moscow, etc., how does that provide protection from the countries that cannot be hit by those limited range Iranian missiles?





if the US touches iran or even gets close to it...i can quarantee you that the so called democratic iraq and afghanistan will be all over and this is no joke.

Your "guarantee" is redundant and lacks validity.
Why?
There are US ballistic missile submarines sitting off your coast.
There are US troops right next door to your country.
There is a US carrier group sitting off Iran.
How "close" is close, Mehran?

Circular logic and empty boasts and threats.
You and the Iranian president have a number of things in common, do you not?





wonder why we havent been air striked yet or attacked?.

Its called letting the diplomacy play out?





we control the shia population and will use it for our advantage incase an attack...

Really?
You do realize that the US could play havoc with a number of anti-Iranian mullah factions within and around Iran, correct?
Your boasting and empty threat insinuations add nothing to this discussion.





you cant handle Iraq,Iran and Afghanistan at the same time.

Further assumptions?





you see why there isnt even an attack?.

Yes, just as I explained....letting diplomacy play out.





we will keep making missiles and so on.

And that is your right.





just keep posting articles about shahab or our president i dont care.

And you should not care, you yourself do it all the time.





by the way we have MIRV capabilities so i think skippy should add that aswell in there.

Yes, and I am also sure that Iran has Captain Kirk and a Federation Starship standing by, as well?






seekerof

[edit on 8-4-2006 by Seekerof]



posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Knights
It seems to me you are under the thought that 'we' are actually war mongering.. I'm sure no-one wants a war, in Europe or the US. I'm also certain that Iran does not want a war.. putting up a front yet in reality an attack would be devastating on both sides.

The fact that Iran may develop nuclear armaments is not ideal. The Middle East has many ongoing conflicts, a nation who may be prepared to use them is a risk none of us want to take.

This is not just a personal issue, it is a global issue concerning every single person, animal, plant on this globe. Is it really worth it in the name of 'defence'??

As an Iranian, what do you think of Israel as a country? Do you suspect war or something similar? Do you actually think your country will use missles as 'defence' or actually use them against Israel or European countries??


Knights we dont want to attack israel and in no way would we want to do it especially to Europe since we have very good economical relationship with the countries there. The reason why we make missiles is because we can, basicly what were trying to say is that we persians are not arabs and that we are way smarter, were just trying to flex our muscles and show other countries that look at what we can do in middle east and as a country with 27 years of sanctions and 8 years of war we do need all these military equipment and make more to show that we are a strong country. no one wants to nuke nobody and like i have said before Ahmadinejad has no control over nukes or our nuclear program for that matter. I mean remember how israel were talking about an air strike and how everybody said they will have no problem doing that?. well the truth is they cant and is the aftermath of that that they are scared off even Bush knows what will happen when an air strike does happen and how iraq and afghanistan wont be the same no more. USA cant handle Iran,Iraq and Afghanistan and thats why all the talk about air strikes is to scare us.

[edit on 8-4-2006 by Mehran]



posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Iran: Israel should be wiped off map President Ahmadinejad: “The establishment of the State of Israel was an offensive move. The Islamic nation will not let its historic enemy live in its midst,” he said.

The State of Israel should be wiped off the map, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Wednesday, underscoring Teheran’s extreme attitude towards the Jewish State.

The Iranian leader's remarks were made during a convention entitled "A World Without Zionists."


"Wiped off the map".. Now what kind of weapon would cause such damage??

Hmm.. I think this may be why Iran shouldn't have nuclear weapons.

[edit on 8-4-2006 by Knights]



posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Knights

Iran: Israel should be wiped off map President Ahmadinejad: “The establishment of the State of Israel was an offensive move. The Islamic nation will not let its historic enemy live in its midst,” he said. Establishment of Israel offensive move.

The State of Israel should be wiped off the map, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Wednesday, underscoring Teheran’s extreme attitude towards the Jewish State.

The Iranian leader's remarks were made during a convention entitled "A World Without Zionists."


"Wiped off the map".. Now what kind of weapon would cause such damage??

Hmm.. I think this may be why Iran shouldn't have nuclear weapons.


i wonder who that impressed or made more support for him. for sure a hell alot of arabs but i guess he did have the right to say that especially when we were being threatened with an air strike and it turns out today it was all a hoax. he has no control over nuclear program or the nukes. only the supreme council does there is no proof of our so called nuclear weapons. all the talk of an attack on iran and an air strike are all talks. what happend to last months air strike?.



posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mehran
well the truth is they cant and is the aftermath of that that they are scared off even Bush knows what will happen when an air strike does happen and how iraq and afghanistan wont be the same no more. USA cant handle Iran,Iraq and Afghanistan and thats why all the talk about air strikes is to scare us.

In your continued boasting and skewed 'truth', consider this:

It took Iran 8 years to "handle" Iraq.
It took the US et al. less than two months to "handle" Iraq.
It took Russia 10 years to "handle" Afghanistan.
It took the US et al. less than 2 months.

Airstrikes are a tool used by virtually ever advanced military in the world.
They are useful for not only accomplishing military goals and objectives but for political means. I am willing to bet that if Iran continues to defy and build their peaceful intent nuclear weapons, that you insist that they are not doing, despite all the signs that they are, airstrikes will eventually be placed among the equation of possible actions, either unilaterally or multilaterally.






seekerof

[edit on 8-4-2006 by Seekerof]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join