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.

 

Is Iran trying to pick a fight withe U.S.and Israel???

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 15 2006 @ 04:20 PM
link   
I think the nuke option is to: 1)to justify its creation and manufacturing, by showing its use. 2)Scare the hell out of the Chinese and the Russians, to show our willingness. 3)Us forces can't do an invasion, because of the present so called "war" on terrorism and the stretching our resources. This is all preset and planned since they took office, probably since Bush Sr. was sworn into office in 1988. The oil is dissipating, this is their bread and butter and in their eyes of national pride for securing America's energy needs until 2050. They actually think what they're doing is the right thing! Even if they did plan all of this craziness, they sure have played it out so horribly wrong and at such a great costs in American lives, time and money! All of the money we have spent on the war on terror up to $300 billion now, could have been used right here at home to create a whole new national alternative energy system and infrastructure along with new distribution stations and new vehicles. This would create jobs in the good ole' US of A and make other nations follow our suit, so they would have to purchase our systems also, making more money for us. We can't do it without BIG OIL, we need they're help, so c'mon big oil, be a true patriot and truly help your country out and watch how we all prosper!




posted on Apr, 15 2006 @ 06:10 PM
link   
Ok-I posted this thread to bring up a point of why hasn't their nuclear programme been stopped yet. Are they trying to start a war and for what reason.Do they already have nukes.there has been alot of talk on the internet and some speculation in the not-so-mainstream media that they do and that's why they are acting so brave in the face of a large enemy like the U.S. The French government has said it believes their nuclear programme is purely for miltary reasons.



posted on Apr, 15 2006 @ 11:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by HiddenReality
Make up your mind, either he is calling for the "zionist ragimes" destruction or Iraels? You seem to change your mind on that fact to suit your other "facts". Israel has started many conflicts in the ME Iran has been around for thousands of years, I dont think they would of lasted so long if they are as eager for death as you claim. To be honest i think your terrified and looking for a boogey man to punish after 9/11. arent the thousands dead in Afghanistan and Iraq enough to satisfy your lust for blood?


OK for those of you who don't "get it", when the President of Iran states "Like it or not, the Zionist regime is heading toward annihilation," I'm pretty sure that he is referring to Israel the Jewish State, not the Government in power. I don't get how you would separate the two, please explain it to me. His vision of Palestine does not include a Jewish State there.

Do you really think he means that he would allow the State of Israel to exist in peace in the Middle East if he had the chance? I have not changed my mind as you could see from my posts. I was just letting those who choose to mince words, try to give the President of Iran an out, which you have done. It is a fact that Iran is the major supporter and funder of Hezbollah, how have I "twisted" this fact?

One would hope that cooler heads would prevail but Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has not toned down his rhetoric nor his actions.

I am neither terrified nor "lusting" for blood. I am concerned that should Iran continue to pursue the path they are on, it will lead to hostilities that will lead to death and destruction in the Middle East . I don't think anyone wants that.

I have an open question to you HiddenReality:

Tell me with a answer backed by facts or actions, that Iran is not trying to pursue nuclear weapons?



posted on Apr, 15 2006 @ 11:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by pavil
One would hope that cooler heads would prevail but Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has not toned down his rhetoric nor his actions.


No doubt Ahmadinejad is stirring the pot.

Time, fortunately, is on the international community’s side (as well as the engaged US’s) for the time being. There are a number of reports, conversations, political positions and diplomatic maneuvers that will need to transpire and/or expire before a move to force is to become a factual realization; none of this will happen ‘over night’.

There is still an enormous amount of pressure that can still be placed upon Iran without the use of military force and her ‘allegiances’ inside the UN may begin to erode even further.


mg



posted on Apr, 16 2006 @ 02:37 AM
link   
Many would like to believe that Iran is trying to pick a fight with the U.N. (not just the united states because unlike Iraq the U.N. is actually on our side for this one because its a violation of treaty). But Iran is simply pushing for more rights for other countries. They are not necessarily picking a fight with the U.S. its more or less the U.S. is picking a fight with Iran because of thier nuclear policy. However, As I have taken it Iran has been beefing with Israel for ages and that is a holy war that the U.S. might find themselves knee deep in as we choose our action. Hopefully Pre-emptive nuclear strike is not the way we go about things, but considering the mind state of our ludacris president its very possible. It seems to me that many republicans still believe in manifest destiny or some imperialist movement that I may never fully comprehend. Its almost an altered state of mentality with a crooked spine. Yes, I disagree with Iran developing nuclear capabilities but thats because I disagree with nuclear technology all together. Nobody wants to support organic fuel but they want to support the most in-organic harmful fuel for anything possible. We are not in anyway as developed as we would like to think and it's a shame that more people cant admitt that. Iran is not picking a fight, but its definetly starting one. We in America cannot afford to be fighting another war, but with the U.N. backing us Its a safe bet to say we will make the first move, and it will most likely hurt us more than we think. We are not at all safe in the United States like we think we are. Even after 9/11 we have very little security keeping mystery people out of the country and with Amnesty reform we could very well be "sleeping with the enemy". The nerve of some people really disgusts me.



posted on Apr, 16 2006 @ 03:02 PM
link   


I have an open question to you HiddenReality:

Tell me with a answer backed by facts or actions, that Iran is not trying to pursue nuclear weapons?


I know it's not directed at me, but had to say something..

Can you prove they are?

You asking for proof of a negative, which cannot be provided. I think, as with Iraq, the onus should be on proving they are, rather than they aren't.

Does everyone have a really short memory, or has the world gone stupid in the past 3 years. These are the exact same things that were discussed about Iraq's "WMD's" before we invaded.

Seriously people, wake up. This has nothing to do with Nukes, it's just a Cassus Belli to bend Iran over the table and be rather rough with them from behind.

Your seriously telling me that the nation with the world's second largest stockpile of Nuke's is scared of Iran, who so far have none and have yet to come anywhere near having just one?

[edit on 16/4/06 by stumason]



posted on Apr, 16 2006 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
You asking for proof of a negative, which cannot be provided. I think, as with Iraq, the onus should be on proving they are, rather than they aren't.


All I am asking for is something other than Iran's word that you can point to and show me point blank that they are taking steps in the opposite direction.



First they fail to disclose their nuclear program fully.
Then they have the father of the Pakistani bomb assist them somewhat with their program.
Then they only disclose their nuclear program when it becomes leaked.
Said program is underground and spread out through the country in a manner not know for civilian only use.
Then they threaten to enrich uranium.
Then they modify a Missile to carry a nuclear payload.
Then when offered to enrich their uranium in Russia, they decline.
Then they actually start enriching uranium.
The IAEA can not give them a clean bill of health.
Then they so far have refused to go along with a Security Council request.

Name one step recently that they have taken that reassures you that they are NOT proceeding along the path to becoming a nuclear armed party.

[edit on 16-4-2006 by pavil]



posted on Apr, 16 2006 @ 03:47 PM
link   

OK for those of you who don't "get it", when the President of Iran states "Like it or not, the Zionist regime is heading toward annihilation," I'm pretty sure that he is referring to Israel the Jewish State, not the Government in power. I don't get how you would separate the two, please explain it to me. His vision of Palestine does not include a Jewish State there.


What is so wrong with wanting the state of Israel annihilated, the US have done the same countless times, there is a difference between wanting a goverment change and wanting to murder every inhabitant of a country.


Do you really think he means that he would allow the State of Israel to exist in peace in the Middle East if he had the chance? I have not changed my mind as you could see from my posts. I was just letting those who choose to mince words, try to give the President of Iran an out, which you have done. It is a fact that Iran is the major supporter and funder of Hezbollah, how have I "twisted" this fact?


Do you really think Israel is a legal country with a right to exist?A lot of people would say no after all the crimes against humanity committed by them. Only the US and a handfull of other countries even class Hezbollah as a terrorist group, just because the US calls somebody a terrorist it doesnt make them so.


I have an open question to you HiddenReality:

Tell me with a answer backed by facts or actions, that Iran is not trying to pursue nuclear weapons?


Im not denying Iran is trying to make a nuke, im saying Iran should be entitled to nukes. Look at the way Israel treats the Palestinians, I cant understand how so shortly after the holocaust the jews who where supposably murdered and tortured in millions can do the exact thing back to another group of people, torture then kill them pen them in ghettos steal their money, and the US Just ignores it.

With a neighbour like Israel im not suprised Iran is after nukes, and if it means somebody finally standing up to you yanks who for some reason think you have the god given right to run this world, then I just hope this day comes soon.



posted on Apr, 16 2006 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by pavil
All I am asking for is something other than Iran's word that you can point to and show me point blank that they are taking steps in the opposite direction.



First they fail to disclose their nuclear program fully.
Then they have the father of the Pakistani bomb assist them somewhat with their program.
Then they only disclose their nuclear program when it becomes leaked.
Said program is underground and spread out through the country in a manner not know for civilian only use.
Then they threaten to enrich uranium.
Then they modify a Missile to carry a nuclear payload.
Then when offered to enrich their uranium in Russia, they decline.
Then they actually start enriching uranium.
The IAEA can not give them a clean bill of health.
Then they so far have refused to go along with a Security Council request.

Name one step recently that they have taken that reassures you that they are NOT proceeding along the path to becoming a nuclear armed party.

[edit on 16-4-2006 by pavil]


It's not just Irans word though, is it? The IAEA says there is no evidence for a nuclear weapons programme.

Enrichment is required for Civilian use as well.

They don't want to hand over control of their fuel cycle to a foreign power, as it puts their energy in the control of a third party. Would the US do that?

They are not obliged to follow the SC request. They are, according to the IAEA, in compliace with the NPT. It is their right under the NPT to have a fuel cycle and nuclear power.

Granted, there are a few questions that need answering, but there is no evidence of a weapons programme, no matter how hard you wish it so. If there was, the IAEA would say it. You also have to remember that the IAEA is politically influenced.

So far, everything that the EU and the US has asked Iran to stop doing, they are entitled to do as part of the NPT. We have no right to ask them to stop.



posted on Apr, 16 2006 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
I know it's not directed at me, but had to say something..

Can you prove they are?

You ask for proof of a negative, which cannot be provided. I think, as with Iraq, the onus should be on proving they are, rather than they aren't.


No.

Can you explain why the "onus" is not Iran's burden to prove otherwise?


mg



posted on Apr, 16 2006 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by missed_gear

No.

Can you explain why the "onus" is not Iran's burden to prove otherwise?


mg


Iran has co-operated with IAEA, who say there is no evidence of a Nuclear Weapons programme.

It is the US/EU that doesn;t believe it, so they should cough up whatever "proof" they have in order for it to be discussed.

Therefore, the onus (it's a real word, you know) is on the accusers to prove that Iran is lying.



posted on Apr, 16 2006 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
Iran has co-operated with IAEA, who say there is no evidence of a Nuclear Weapons programme.

Iran, according to the IAEA, is also in violation of the NPT, stumason.

And that "no" evidence mantra is like that concerning Saddam having "no" WMDs. Though there was and are no apparent direct evidences, there certainly are indirect evidences. Example: when there is a hamburger bun found, ketchup found, mustard found, lettuce found, tomatoes found, and cheese and pickles found, but no hamburger, is it not still safe to assume that one was getting ready to make a hamburger?







seekerof

[edit on 16-4-2006 by Seekerof]



posted on Apr, 16 2006 @ 06:22 PM
link   
[Mod Edit: removed unnecessary quote of entire preceeding post]


How are they in violation? I am sorry if I have missed this one, but all we here over here is that there are "unanswered questions" about their programme, rather than blatant violation of the NPT.

I can understand the concern that the suits have with the Iranians, but as far as we've heard over here, there is no violation.


Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 4/17/2006 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on Apr, 16 2006 @ 06:25 PM
link   
Just did a quick search and can't find anything that clearly states Iran is violation. There are accusations, but they are unsubstantiated:




After the 1979 Iranian Revolution, Iran informed the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) of its plans to restart its nuclear program using indigenously-made nuclear fuel, and in 1983 the IAEA even planned to provide assistance to Iran under its Technical Assistance Program to produce enriched uranium. An IAEA report stated clearly that its aim was to “contribute to the formation of local expertise and manpower needed to sustain an ambitious programme in the field of nuclear power reactor technology and fuel cycle technology”. However, the IAEA was forced to terminate the program under U.S. pressure. "Iran+needs+nuclear+energy,+not+weapons"

Iran has a legal right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, a right which in 2005 the U.S. and the EU-3 began to assert had been forfeited by a "clandestine" nuclear program that supposedly came to light in 2002. In fact, Iran's enrichment program was openly discussed on national radio, and IAEA inspectors had even visited Iran's uranium mines. [16]. ([24]) Iranian politicians compare its treatment as a signatory to the NPT with three nations that have not signed the NPT: Israel, India, and Pakistan. Each of these nations developed an indigenous nuclear weapons capability: Israel by 1968 [25], India by 1974 [26] and Pakistan by 1990 [27].

All ground inspections of Iran have shown the same evidence; Iran is using its nuclear capabilities in context of the NPT and has not pursued nuclear weapons. However, there is evidence that Pakistan's Abdul Qadeer Khan provided Iran with nuclear technology [28]. The United States accuses Iran of seeking the "capacity" to build bombs, or obtaining technology which "could be" used to make bombs. In Paragraph 52 of his November 2003 report the Director-General of the IAEA confirmed that "to date, there is no evidence that the previously undeclared nuclear material and activities referred to above were related to a nuclear weapons program." [17] After one more year and over tens of thousands of man-hours of inspections, El Baradei again confirmed in Paragraph 112 of his November 2004 report that "all the declared nuclear material in Iran has been accounted for, and therefore such material is not diverted to prohibited activities."[18] On January 31st 2006, the IAEA reported that "Iran has continued to facilitate access under its Safeguards Agreement as requested by the Agency...including by providing in a timely manner the requisite declarations and access to locations."[19]

Source




[edit on 16/4/06 by stumason]



posted on Apr, 16 2006 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
How are they in violation? I am sorry if I have missed this one, but all we here over here is that there are "unanswered questions" about their programme, rather than blatant violation of the NPT.

From the BBC:


This is how countries voted in September 2005, when the IAEA agreed that Iran was in violation of the NPT and that it was a matter within the competence of the Security Council.
BBC Source


State Departments response to Iran's "not being in violation":


So Iran has a right to peaceful nuclear energy, and the President has confirmed that the U.S. recognizes and supports that right. Our problem is that there is compelling evidence that Iran's nuclear program is not peaceful . The evidence is not just based on U.S. intelligence, but on an extensive and ongoing IAEA investigation, which has discovered serious and longstanding efforts by Iran to hide very sensitive aspects of its nuclear program -- like uranium enrichment -- from the IAEA and the world. The IAEA is also investigating evidence that Iran has been trying to develop nuclear weapons capabilities, a deeply troubling finding. What the U.S., the EU, and even Russia, China, and others are telling Iran is that they need to cooperate fully with that IAEA investigation, they need to freeze their sensitive nuclear-related work on uranium enrichment and other technologies that could help them make a nuclear weapon, and they need to negotiate a solution with the EU3 and others that helps build confidence over many years that Iran's nuclear activities are completely peaceful. If Iran does that, the international community, including Russia and the EU, are ready to help assist Iran with an expanded, safe, safeguarded nuclear energy program, with our support.


More:


Could you please provide the "evidence" that Iran has violated the terms of the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT). It's all very confusing. The NPT [seems to] allow Iran to build and manufacture fuel for their nuclear energy program. Has Iran "violated" the NPT? What is the evidence?

Stephen Rademaker:

Terry, I'd be happy to answer that. Iran claims there is no "legal basis" for the IAEA Board to report Iran's safeguards noncompliance to the UN Security Council, and no evidence that they have violated the NPT. Iran is incorrect. The IAEA's nine written reports on Iran -- which are all available at the IAEA's website, and I encourage everyone to read them carefully -- document a two-decade history of Iran hiding sensitive nuclear work from the IAEA, work like uranium enrichment and plutonium separation, all of which it was legally obliged to report to the IAEA. But rather than report such work to the IAEA, Iran tried to hide it systematically for 20 years. The IAEA reported this in 2003 to the IAEA's Board of Governors, which last September adopted a resolution confirming that Iran was thus in noncompliance with its NPT safeguards obligations. The IAEA Statute is very clear that in such a situation where the Board is faced with such noncompliance, the Board is required to report that noncompliance to the UN Security Council. So there is actually a statutory obligation to report Iran to the UN Security Council, which we hope the Board tomorrow or Saturday will finally meet. That same safeguards noncompliance is also a clear violation of Article III of the NPT, which obliges non-nuclear weapons states members of the NPT to put their nuclear programs under IAEA safeguards. Iran clearly did not. The international community firmly agrees that Iran's long record of safeguards noncompliance violates Article III. The U.S. and many other countries also believe that there is enough evidence of Iran's nuclear weaponization efforts to conclude that Iran has also violated Article II of the NPT, an Article I mentioned a little bit earlier in response to L.D.'s question.
State Department


The link to the IAEA and the archives concerning Iran, here: IAEA.org: Iran Timeline





seekerof

[edit on 16-4-2006 by Seekerof]



posted on Apr, 16 2006 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
[From the BBC:


This is how countries voted in September 2005, when the IAEA agreed that Iran was in violation of the NPT and that it was a matter within the competence of the Security Council.
BBC Source



seekerof


How odd when in January 2006, El Bareidi (sp?) said they weren't...

All very confusing



posted on Apr, 16 2006 @ 10:44 PM
link   
To all you asking what Iran has done to call for war than obviously you have not heard of the "World Without Zionism" conference. Here's a link to the transcripts of the speech World Without Zionism
and I'm sure you have seen the backdrop for this conference.......an hourglass showing Isreal and USA being destroyed shown here:



posted on Apr, 16 2006 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by HiddenReality
What is so wrong with wanting the state of Israel annihilated, the US have done the same countless times, there is a difference between wanting a goverment change and wanting to murder every inhabitant of a country.

Your twist on "annihilated" in conjunction with the US is unexplained.
Further, you are right, there is a difference between complete annihilation and government change, and my friend, Iran is not looking for a simple government change when they continue to say that Israel should be annihilated. If the Iranian President cannot come out and clarify that what he means the current Israeli government--which he has had a number of times to do and did not--then I think it is pretty safe to assume that he is not talking about government change but annihilation of the state of Israel.





Do you really think Israel is a legal country with a right to exist?

Before I attempt to address this, let me ask you a few questions:
1) Does Palestine deserve a state?
2) Does Israel deserve a state?





A lot of people would say no after all the crimes against humanity committed by them.

Can you link a number estimate to that "alot of people," cause I have a feeling that your idea of "alot of people" is quite different from mine.




Only the US and a handfull of other countries even class Hezbollah as a terrorist group, just because the US calls somebody a terrorist it doesnt make them so.

A handful would imply 5, and my friend, I have already shown within this very topic that there are more nations than 5 that consider Hezbollah (or branches thereof) a "terrorist" organization. And because some nations have not listed Hezbollah as a "terrorist" organization does not automatically imply or convey that Hezbollah is not a "terrorist" organization. Your circle logic backfired.



Im not denying Iran is trying to make a nuke, im saying Iran should be entitled to nukes.

And your the same type people that think this world would be a lovely place if every nation on this planet had nuclear weapon capabilities, correct?





Look at the way Israel treats the Palestinians, I cant understand how so shortly after the holocaust the jews who where supposably murdered and tortured in millions can do the exact thing back to another group of people, torture then kill them pen them in ghettos steal their money, and the US Just ignores it.

Yet you fail to mention the Palestinian and Arab hand in killing Jews during WWII. Moreover, your simply using Israel as an excuse for Iran having that right to nuclear weapons. Just who the hell made Iran the savior of the Middle East?




With a neighbour like Israel im not suprised Iran is after nukes, and if it means somebody finally standing up to you yanks who for some reason think you have the god given right to run this world, then I just hope this day comes soon.

As for your rhetoric concerning the "yanks" running the world and Iran acquiring nukes, you had better pray that Iran never uses them, because when they do, the Middle East will look like one huge glass sheet from space, and that is not even talking about the rest of the world. Your understanding of maintaining the international status quo, balance of power, and international studies is befuddling, to say the least. But hey, no worry there ole' chap, the world continues to go round and round, huh? Btw, watch out what you send via text messaging.







seekerof

[edit on 16-4-2006 by Seekerof]



posted on Apr, 17 2006 @ 01:15 AM
link   
In my opnion, the point thing should be when is the best time US burning Iranian nuclear station, not others!



posted on Apr, 17 2006 @ 06:36 AM
link   
What exactly is Iran doing wrong though?

Iran is making plans to destroy all none Muslim counties, there starting with Israel, because thats generally where alot of Christians look, towards Christianity, so in effect it would be a direct stab at the western world through Christianity, as Christians have a effect on the Western world.

I've also read else where, so what if Israel gets blown out the waters, what concern is it of ours..

Well if that was to happen with that amount of NUCLEAR explosions, it would tilt the Earth on its axis, which would mean global warming would speed up.
tsunamis.
Earthquakes like we've never seen.
The whole world would be rocked then destroyed.
Also why would Iran stop there, other countries would be on there list then..

And before some one turns round and say that would never happen, the Iran president is a mad man it could..

MIKE



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join