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.

 

War with Iran is Inevitable so what Should We Do about It?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 17 2006 @ 04:43 PM
link   
Is Iran Acting Like A Country Seeking A Peaceful Compromise?
1. Iran has rejected plans to have its uranium processed in Russia (apparently it could have been enriched for free). www.themoscowtimes.com...
2. Iran’s president causes much international condemnation by calling for Israel to be “wiped of the map”. forthefreedomofiran.blogspot.com...
Two days later he responds to international concerns by repeating this same message. news.independent.co.uk...
3. Anti war IAEA inspector is rebuffed by Iran www.freerepublic.com...
4. April 14th Iran calls the U.S “a decaying power”; and states that owing to its stamina its threats are unworthy of intimidation. www.spacewar.com...

I think Iran is stretching the peaceful nuclear national pride argument by saying it is so important for it to enrich its own uranium metal that it cannot be done abroad.
The Iranian presidents Israel statement was nothing original for Iranian verbal; but repeating them word for word again after massive international condemnation (including from Russia) is significant.
If the anti Iranian propaganda was always true I wouldn’t have been surprised if they had sent the IAEA inspector back in a body bag (just to drive home the point). Of course its not, so in reality they were a tiny bit more diplomatic about the nuclear issue (but barring the life of one man maybe not that much).

I think Iranian is completely right to access the U.S as a decaying power. But given that state of international concern, whether or not they were right to make that assessment so public is another thing.

But the U.S does have a mounting deficit caused both by its addiction to increasingly expensive oil, and the rise of Asia (particularly China). Its forces are overstretched and the costs of its campaigns are mounting debts. Investment is following better returns abroad and many of its goods are also being manufactured their. For a big spender the U.S is becoming far too much of a consumer than a producer. The dollar is on the decline and even the number in circulation is no longer known (the federal reserve stopped publishing this figure called the M3 quite recently).
Till recently (say before we thought the Iraq invasion would be easy) the U.S could have wiped Iran of the map in the blink of an eye. Today this would cause the price of oil to explode and the global economy (particularly its own economy) to implode. Recently the IMF made the threat of the high oil prices very clear… business.timesonline.co.uk...

Is The West Acting Like a Group of Nations Seeking Peace?

Seeking Peace
1. President Bush endorses Iranian uranium enrichment abroad. news.bbc.co.uk...
2. World Trade Organization offered to admit Iran to world trade organization in exchange for freezing suspect nuclear activities. www.mindfully.org...
3. President Bush and almost all Western powers endorse Iranian nuclear energy for electricity.
4. The western world has barely made any of Iran’s other weapons a pressing issue (ether chemical or biological). It’s only key objections are nuclear weapons; weapons the Iranians they say they do not wish to possess.

Threatening War
1. President Bush has not ruled out “the use of all options”
2. Condoleeza Rice has stated publicly that Iran is not cooperating with the will of the international community, and that it may be time to move negotiations to the next level.
3. President Bush is rumoured to want the use of military force more than his generals. He is rumoured to be considering the use of tactical nuclear weapons to destroy Iranians deeply buried facilities, and Condoleeza Rice is thought to have told diplomats that they should prepare for nuclear war as a possibility. However none of this constitutes a clear threat as much (if not all of this) been denied officially. In contradiction to that; this official response may be expected regardless of whether the allegations are true.

EU Challenge…
Iran accused of possessing documents that serve no other purpose than making nuclear weapons. www.cbsnews.com...

Conclusion…
Iran is behaving like a nation preparing to develop nuclear weapons. Its rejection of foreign uranium enrichment makes it a fact it is unwilling to address international concerns. The timing and repeating of the anti Israel remarks was highly provocative; and would seem to confirm an apparent “willingness” to see the international situation deteriorate still further; rebuffing the IAEA inspector was defiant and given the speediness of the rebuff somewhat unnecessary.
Iran’s economy planning and investment in investment in military technology demonstrate preparation for war; publicly reminding the west of its dependence on oil only serves to show an obvious confidence in its position for war.

Provocative, unwilling to compromise, defiant, and without respect to international concerns and even threats; the country’s defiance would appear to go beyond national pride and into territory that confirms concerns about nuclear proliferation and therefore international criminality.

In contrast (and probably out of self interest) the West is trying to find and follow all roads to peace; the foreign enrichment plan was one; and the WTO offer was another. Both of these have been rejected by non other than Iran.
If America is serious about protecting Israel (and few would doubt it is) then war is around the corner (unless of course ether these or another road to peace can be found and subsequently accepted by the Iranian side).

Given that war with Iran is CURRENTLY inevitable my question to ATS is what should we do about it?
And any hawk who thinks that a missile strike against Iran’s deeply buried facilities is all that is needed; must surely also agree that unlike a ground invasion it is only a temporary solution (unless Iran was thereafter to listen to voices to reason, something less likely should we give it the inflamed pride that comes with a bombed army-country).

Personally I would rather Iran had nuclear weapons than have us launch an invasion.
1. Basically I think the country with most to fear is Israel and that it is ultimately Israel’s problem.
2. Israel would be worse for a war with Iran than Iotallah with a nuclear bomb. Because Iran already has biological and chemical weapons, and if the religious Iran regime (generals or politicians) feels that’s its dead anyway so anything it does is a bonus then I'm sure using those weapons against Israel will be a bonus (a most holy one). After all they will know-think more anyone that the only reason why America is bombing them is because of Israel.
3. If Iran develops nuclear bombs it is unlikely to use them overnight. I think mutually applied destruction will scare those leaders who use religion and would probably go to hell by standards of their own religion. I think the more genuinely religious people will still feel doubtful about causing the near extinction of (God’s) Arab people.
4. In many ways Iran’s possession of nuclear weapons COULD be a good thing. It should mean Israel treats the Palestinians with more respect, and that America’s support for Israel is confined to helping Israel rather than bending its foreign policy over backwards in the region and even launching wars on its behalf.

But that’s me being personal. Reality is the corridors of power are full of people who should probably go to hell. My suspicion is they tend to see things in terms of brute force, and at the end of the day we have nukes. Rather than see Iran possess several atomic bombs (and live with more of them there afterwards) I think they would sooner wipe the country of the map, and also cause the western people to endure one headache of an economic recession.


[edit on 090705 by Liberal1984]




posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 02:46 AM
link   
what ever we can, but like you say, to the best of our ability.

oh yes, dont depend on others to save the world, the world needs the world to wake up, not a few select.

Nukes = Hype, if are president ever uses nukes I am gonna be "the first"
(a common sentiment I am sure most would feel) one to call for his head.

I believe the ball is currently in the US's court, however Iran is making it impossible to smooth over relations, causing the US to either play hard or not at all. I would not worry about Iran, as it is not Iraq, an almost defeated country before we invaded. Dont forget we had been planning to invade Iraq for some time before 911


If you ever see or saw the stock pile of armor that was at Camp Doha in kuwait (~2000), you will know we were ready for something big. That place had a nice mini put put too - called fun world I believe.

- God bless TCNs, serving our military abroad.



[edit on 18-4-2006 by pcxmac]

[edit on 18-4-2006 by pcxmac]



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 06:27 AM
link   
I think its obviouis to the world leaders now that rummy and bushco. sat around on coke while mongering this whole war plan up.

The plan... obviously, was to LET the taliban (that we supported) attack us on 911 so that we had an excuse to invade 1st Afghanistan, 2nd Iran, thus surrounding Iran for the real target.

The world leaders know these things people wake up.

The thing that is shaking all of this up is the fact that:

#1 Iran knows this obviously and is sending in suicide bombers to our troops in Iraq.

#2 Hamas won the Democratic vote in Palastine. The Hamas organization has been rumored to be supported by Iran.

#3 News of a possible alliance btween not only Russia and Iran but also Russia, China, and Iran!

~Russia is trying to play off the fact that it has an alliance with Iran by remaining friendly to the U.S.

~Russia in the process of playing off its alliance may "trick" the U.S. into attacking Iran and then expose its alliance.

~China remains neutral as always on all fronts.

~Intelligence confirms a possible secret alliance b/tween China, Russia, and Iran.



*Possible scenario escape*

*UNKNOWN*

*Israel now plays its part... or not!*

*Since Aerial Sharon's stroke its uncertain if they will now be convinced to attack Iran with an arsenal of nuclear weapons, which under Sharon would be done.*



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 06:27 AM
link   
Iran has brought religion into this problem now, (those who saw the speech this morning, so the Iranian President saying they are blessed by God and were visited by Angels). Plus, i wouldn't rule out the theory of North Korea helping Iran, i heard experts using that theory a lot and North Korea would use it to supports its low economy.

This President of Iran believes he can speed up the coming of the messiah, he tells his people to prepare themselves for the Final War. Thats not good. He is making the country "military prepared" and for those on ATS who believe Israel wouldn't be attacked,it would. For the process of the messiah to be "speeded up", the Temple Mount has to be destroyed and rebuilt.

Ladies and Gentlemen, we have a religous extremist playing with Nukes



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 06:52 AM
link   
I may be wrong, correct me if i am, but WE opened up that Pandora's Box, did we not?
Prior to invading Iraq and when the accusations started with Iran, THAT'S when that whacko evil maniac in Iran started the threats! At least the big threats!
Did he threaten Israel BEFORE our little war? I would really like an answer to this one and a link. I'm not on HIS side, i am just curious and want to get my facts right.

Thanks



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 07:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by infinite
Iran has brought religion into this problem now, (those who saw the speech this morning, so the Iranian President saying they are blessed by God and were visited by Angels). Plus, i wouldn't rule out the theory of North Korea helping Iran, i heard experts using that theory a lot and North Korea would use it to supports its low economy.

This President of Iran believes he can speed up the coming of the messiah, he tells his people to prepare themselves for the Final War. Thats not good. He is making the country "military prepared" and for those on ATS who believe Israel wouldn't be attacked,it would. For the process of the messiah to be "speeded up", the Temple Mount has to be destroyed and rebuilt.

Ladies and Gentlemen, we have a religous extremist playing with Nukes


Yes,mr President,
but this only a part of the problem and the visible one.
The large iceberg part is the desire of USA to impose its way of life and culture in the world,to eliminate injustice ,as they saw it,and to unite the world under their rule.
And from Persia,is the desire to aquire once more the imperial status they had in the Middle East region.Now it is difficult for them,because all the countries surrounding them have nuclear weapons:Israel,Egypt,Pakistan,Russia,Syria,maybe Saudi Arabia also.Lybia also,so they must protect themselves,impose upon the arab nations(remember:they are not arabs),take a leadership role in the Israeli isssue.
But these are dead talks right now,only interesting for scholars:Iran is militarily ready for war and it will attak your country and USA in a few days/weeks.I have no doubt about it.
If we attack them first,we cause a "reaction" from China ,India and Russia,their allies who fear to lose control of the oil in the region as well as their pride.
There are talks on GLP about detonating a nuke in Houston in order to fuel the war,about 1000 targets to be hit in one air strike in Iran from bases on Oman,Afghanistan,Irak and Diego Garcia.about dedications writed on nukes loaded on B2s at Fairford and the deployment of all forces in the Iran ops theatre.Let me assure you:if this is not stopped,world will plunge into nuclear war with unknown consequences from above.



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 08:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe


I may be wrong, correct me if i am, but WE opened up that Pandora's Box, did we not?
Prior to invading Iraq and when the accusations started with Iran, THAT'S when that whacko evil maniac in Iran started the threats! At least the big threats!
Did he threaten Israel BEFORE our little war? I would really like an answer to this one and a link. I'm not on HIS side, i am just curious and want to get my facts right.

Thanks


He didn't, but spirtual leaders said they needed nuclear weapons to protect themselves "from th zionist threat". Iran and Israel have been like this for decades. This goes back to the revolution in Iran, when the new lobby got in, Zionism became the main focus.

But i am suprised, the Saudi's have been silent on this. I know the current King recognizes Israel, but you still cannot enter Saudia Arabia if you are a Jew and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is still promoted there and in Iran too. (are the Saudi's giving money to Palestine still?)



If we attack them first,we cause a "reaction" from China ,India and Russia,their allies who fear to lose control of the oil in the region as well as their pride


Its not the other "big 3" im worried about. Attack Iran first and you'll get the arab nations coming to the aid of Iran. The potential Arab coalition could be Iran, Syria, Egypt (maybe), Saudia Arabia, Libya, Lebanon (maybe). Some have mention Jordan, but according to recent relations between the two, i find it a bit unlikely to happen.

Well, that is just my theory, i could be extremely wrong and off the target



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Caligulas

There are talks on GLP about detonating a nuke in Houston in order to fuel the war,about 1000 targets to be hit in one air strike in Iran from bases on Oman,Afghanistan,Irak and Diego Garcia.about dedications writed on nukes loaded on B2s at Fairford and the deployment of all forces in the Iran ops theatre.Let me assure you:if this is not stopped,world will plunge into nuclear war with unknown consequences from above.


I have read about the 'Houston nuke', but where did you hear about the dedications written on nukes loaded on B2's at Fairford?

It does not surprise me if true, and it saddens me to say that, and it should sadden us all.

Do you have a link please? And what's GLP?

Cheers.



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 12:17 PM
link   
Iran knows that in order to avoid a possible US invasion they NEED nukes. For a defensive purpose.

I mean, who knows what the USA will do now, since it can apparently just invade any country it deems a "terrorist" country, and militarily occupy it as long as they want.

Don't you think Iran and every other country in the world realizes that the only reason North Korea isn't being attacked is because they are STRONG and they have nukes?

And who started it all? Bush & co. He's been haranguing Iran for many years now.

Axis of Evil, turrorist sympathizers, blah blah. Don't you think it would have been smart in the last 3 years for Iran to actually do something to try and DEFEND itself? I mean, what would you do? Just roll over and play dead and hope things go well?

The USA won't even TALK or negotiate whatsoever with Iran even though Iran has requested it.

So switch the black hat that you have all given Iran to the USA's head.

You created this situation by unilaterally invading a sovereign country without international approval.



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 02:26 PM
link   
I don't think that they're there now, but back in late March, Fairford had these visitors.







zero lift



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 02:53 PM
link   

War with Iran is Inevitable so what Should We Do about It?


- My own suggestion would be that people stop buying into the absurd and self serving notions that the war-perv element would like us to such as this one, 'liberal 1984'.

There is no 'inevitability' about a war with Iran.

In fact given how these 'tensions' are serving to boost the already bloated military budgets and prop up the support for the conservative and reactionary element in both the USA and Iran right now I don't see any reason why any of them would 'spoil' things with an actual war.



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 03:19 PM
link   
I think the USA and friends will refrain from attacking Iran for the near future. I think Iran has 5-8 months to get its act together. I actually think Iran will be the aggressor in the end, yes really. Iran will develop a swollen head if the world does nothing about its nukes right now and will get cocky. I think Iran will start to believe its own hype and propaganda leading to aggressive politics or even outright military action against Israel and others.

Once this happens the world will have little trouble coming together and taking the appropriate "action" against Iran.

It’s only a matter of time before the fanatical Iranian leaders take one step too far with their rhetoric before the world is unanimous against them. It’s close now, no matter what you read in the papers.

And I will reiterate for the billionth time: There will never be a “war” with Iran, it will be an attack that will flatten its offensive military and all nuclear abilities. There will be no soldiers facing off across a field shooting at each other or an occupation of any sort. Just simple obliteration using the most advanced weapons ever devised.



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jakomo
Don't you think Iran and every other country in the world realizes that the only reason North Korea isn't being attacked is because they are STRONG and they have nukes?


The academic community frowns on your conclusions.


You forgot to add that N. Korea doesn't have any oil or other goods that the U.S. deems important. What would the United States want with a country of poor destitute peasants? They are crossing out southern border in droves of their own free will already. We dont' need to invade another country to get more.

This is where Iran is wrong. Posession of a nuclear weapon is not enough deterrance when the U.S's life-blood flows from the region. For some reason the kooks that are running Iran don't seem to get it. Iran is the food and the U.S. is a pack of hungry wolves. Displaying a gun might cause the predator to circle and think before attacking, but it will not change the outcome.

The other obvious point that Iran is missing is that the U.S. is the undisupted king of nuclear weapons. Iran is where the U.S. was back in the 1940s. If Iran puts the nuclear option on the table they just gave the U.S. defense contractors a chance to do a live test of the nuclear option. Does Iran think that those submarines that launced Tommahawk missiles at Iraq only carry conventional weapons?

One last reason for Iran to back down. Even if they have nuclear weapons, the don't have the delivery systems that the U.S. has. You know they probably could obtain nuclear weapons without any problem if they would shut their mouths and stop acting like crazies.



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 11:03 PM
link   
I agree with Sminkeypinky that given the recent defence spending you would of thought there would be no need for a war with Iran. But you forget one thing: Iran threatens Israel, and Israel is the centre of the universe (well in American forighn policy anyway).

I often have the opposite views of Skippytjc but this time I'm in full agreement. I would like to think Iran has time to work things out, and that it would be the aggressor in any war before anyone else; because that's the way things should be.
Skippytic is defiantly right that war with Iran isn't quite the right word. Genocidal Extermination is probably more correct because at the end of the day Iran does have biological weapons and those will have to be stopped.
Like bdates said "does Iran think that those submarines that launched Tommahawk missiles at Iraq only carry conventional weapons?"

dgtemp was right about us opening up the Pandora's Box. If we hadn’t invaded Iraq, Iran would never have dared be so cocky. In fact we could have fed them to Saddam at any time.

My New Conclusion: Let Iran have nukes if it really persists, let's hope like Jakomo that Iran won't get too cocky and that it only wants these weapons for political reasons like national pride and to ensure its defences never become like Iraq’s.
And if it does get cocky like Skippyjc says it would; then let's try to do our best to tolerate that too.
And if it becomes an invader then obviously we will have no choice but to wipe it of the face of the map. Iran will still exist it will just be a bit a radioactive. And at the end of day it won't be us who carry the weight for this moral crime but whoever went from being a bit cocky to an aggressor.


I just hope Bush and Co don't get ahead of themselves.
(Otherwise the question facing the people of the west is "how do we stop them?")

zero lift’s pictures were great but I would be lying if I said I was surprised to know that any number of any kind of military preparations might be under way.


[edit on 090705 by Liberal1984]



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 11:55 PM
link   
OK. What should "we" do about "it"? Make peace as best you can and wait until the powers that be decide our fates? Pretty much. And I'm an optimist!

Seriously, I'm set to split with about 10 minutes notice and lots of contingencies built in - Northern Ontario, a day's bicycle ride into the Almaguin Highlands - the sticks.

I'm not sure there is anything anybody can do at this late date. I don't think it will matter what happens at the UN on the 28th. Some sort of open military conflict although abhorrent and repulsive will happen soon after, perhaps even before.

The rhetoric allows no one to back down on any issue without loosing face. Sad and "painted into a corner" is not how I had hoped this would have turned out.

We're all to blame and we will collectively all pay - humans are ALL the worse for this shameful episode yet to be. I think we are guilty of perhaps trusting too few with too much - the species' fate hangs on the whims of a dozen or two humans of variable repute and history on all sides. The Peter Principle - adaptive competence out of it's element and out of control or why things always go wrong.

What were we or weren't we thinking! We speak but it does little good - Babylon. Ever jump out of a perfectly good airplane? Like that, the 1st time.

Victor K

PS. My "Roman-homes" gonna fix me up with what his EMS crews do call "4's" - 'hadta kno'... I'll report back.



posted on Apr, 19 2006 @ 07:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by zero lift
I don't think that they're there now, but back in late March, Fairford had these visitors.


zero lift


Thanks for posting the pics, but what I want to know if anyone has heard about this rumour/report posted in this thread that dedications are being written on nukes being prepped for loading at Fairford.

Anyone?



posted on Apr, 19 2006 @ 08:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by dbates


You forgot to add that N. Korea doesn't have any oil or other goods that the U.S. deems important. What would the United States want with a country of poor destitute peasants? They are crossing out southern border in droves of their own free will already. We dont' need to invade another country to get more.


The US foreign policy on North Korea stems from the fear of North Korea uniting with South Korea to make a United Korea, or a Korea of two autonomous parts in a single entity. Imagine the economic powerhouse that could produce, it could become the new Asian Tiger of economies, second only perhaps to China.

With China's economic growth as it is, seeing the formation of another asian tiger economy would prove a further headace to the US.

Thus, the 2002 Axis Of Evil speech, which came at at time that the two Koreas were on good terms, and were speaking frequently to one another about furthering relations and ties, made North Korea paranoid, and put back the relations between the two Koreas by about a decade.

Cue North Korea seeking nuclear weapons, after hearing the 'axis of evil speech' and seeing Iraq blasted, leading to North Korea's isolation.

The Axis Of Evil Speech had done it's stuff in delaying Korea from being united.

Bit I digress, this thread is about Iran, not North Korea.


Originally posted by dbates
This is where Iran is wrong. Posession of a nuclear weapon is not enough deterrance when the U.S's life-blood flows from the region. For some reason the kooks that are running Iran don't seem to get it. Iran is the food and the U.S. is a pack of hungry wolves. Displaying a gun might cause the predator to circle and think before attacking, but it will not change the outcome.



Iran would see a nuclear weapon as a deterrence to a US attack, and it is more than aware of the US's nuclear arsenal.

While Iran's nuclear programme is indeed not as advanced as America's, Iran is perhaps of the logic that while it's a Rhino of one horn and America is of a hundred horns, if America charges, Iran could gore America once, just once to send a message: "You may want to bring us down, but we'll make you bleed"

And even if the US nukes Iran 10x that, the leadership in Iran will have contented themselves that they defended themselves in attack with a nuke, and put up a 'fight'.

It's this theory that Iran are relying on, in which the message to the US would be "You may attack us, and win, but we'll hurt you as we go down, could you handle that?"

Like treading on a nail with your barefoot. You have your might in our size, but your stomping foot on that nail will be made to bleed for it's actions.



posted on Apr, 19 2006 @ 08:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Liberal1984

dgtemp was right about us opening up the Pandora's Box. If we hadn’t invaded Iraq, Iran would never have dared be so cocky. In fact we could have fed them to Saddam at any time.


The US did try and feed Iran to Saddam, in the the 1980's, supporting Saddam (and perhaps encouraging) in his attack on Iran that started the 10-year Iraq-Iran War which cost 1 million lives, also known as the First Gulf War (The Gulf War being the 2nd, the 2003 Iraq War the third,) providing Saddam with Satellite images of Iranian troop positions, which Saddam then used to pinpoint gas attacks on the Iranian troops.

Saddam later was reported to have said that attacking those Iranians troops with gas was "like spraying flies".



posted on Apr, 19 2006 @ 08:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Liberal1984
I agree with Sminkeypinky that given the recent defence spending you would of thought there would be no need for a war with Iran.
But you forget one thing: Iran threatens Israel, and Israel is the centre of the universe (well in American forighn policy anyway).


- Well I can see where you are coming from here but I think that over-looks Israel's military spending and capabilities......and the fact that it is Israel that has had many nuclear weapons for decades, and not Iran.
It is no great surprise Iran would feel threatened.
It's also worth bearing in mind the fact that Iran has had chemical and biological weapons for decades and done absolutely nothing threatening to Israel or anyone else with them (and even there it is Iran that has signed up to international treaties - unlike some).

......and let's not forget the latest news on this, that we now know - because the Israelis are saying so - that Israel has sea launched nuclear missiles, in addition to their already large nuclear inventory - so the ridiculous fantasy of an Iranian nuclear 'knock-out blow' destroying Israel's retaliatory capability isn't the possibility some were once hawking around and claiming a real threat.......as if it ever really were anyway.

Iran is surrounded by several nations and navies' and their fully functional nuclear weapons (on proven delivery systems).
Iran has, unlike some, signed up to several international treaties and had years of inspections and 24/7 monitoring.

There is no way Iran will do anything (and this is to make a huge leap - no credible intel group has backed - and accept that Iran might have one or a couple of nuclear weapons) because she would be completely annihilated, and they know that.

The theocracy in Iran had been losing support but these threats and intimidation have bolstered their position greatly (just as it has all served Bush & Co. so well); hence the rhetoric and idiotic slogans).
Rather conveniently for all concerned.

IMO if war was to come it would be through one of 3 things; one, a false flag operation giving the excuse for an attack, two, a strike from Israel or three, a strike from the US.
All of which boil down to 'the threat' actually not being from Iran - although if Iran were to retaliate, as anyone else would, no doubt some would claim that unjustified!

.....and if they are insane enough to use nuclear weapons (and/or contaminate huge tracts of Iran and subsequently Asia by bombing and destroying parts of Iran's nuclear installations......which they can not fully destroy because Iran has, unsportingly, buried so much) Israel and/or the USA will subject themselves to global pariah status thanks to the enormous innocent civillian death toll they will be responsible for creating.

The whole thing is nuts and they should be talking properly and not threatening each other, but still, religion, ideology, history, habits and instincts are all hard to break, eh?
Kind of makes war seem the easiest option (to some).



[edit on 19-4-2006 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Apr, 19 2006 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey


- Well I can see where you are coming from here but I think that over-looks Israel's military spending and capabilities......and the fact that it is Israel that has had many nuclear weapons for decades, and not Iran.
It is no great surprise Iran would feel threatened.
It's also worth bearing in mind the fact that Iran has had chemical and biological weapons for decades and done absolutely nothing threatening to Israel or anyone else with them (and even there it is Iran that has signed up to international treaties - unlike some).


......and let's not forget the latest news on this, that we now know - because the Israelis are saying so - that Israel has sea launched nuclear missiles, in addition to their already large nuclear inventory - so the ridiculous fantasy of an Iranian nuclear 'knock-out blow' destroying Israel's retaliatory capability isn't the possibility some were once hawking around and claiming a real threat.......as if it ever really were anyway.


Agreed.


Originally posted by sminkeypinkey

Iran is surrounded by several nations and navies' and their fully functional nuclear weapons (on proven delivery systems).
Iran has, unlike some, signed up to several international treaties and had years of inspections and 24/7 monitoring.


And this is where Iranians, even Iranians who don't support the Ayatollahs, see double standards. They say 'If India, Pakistan and Israel can have a nuclear programme, why can't we?'


Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
There is no way Iran will do anything (and this is to make a huge leap - no credible intel group has backed - and accept that Iran might have one or a couple of nuclear weapons) because she would be completely annihilated, and they know that.


Absolutely.



Originally posted by sminkeypinkeyThe theocracy in Iran had been losing support but these threats and intimidation have bolstered their position greatly (just as it has all served Bush & Co. so well); hence the rhetoric and idiotic slogans).
Rather conveniently for all concerned.


It's called the Blitz effect, from The London Blitz. When your country is threatened from outside, you unite behind the nation, and thus the government, even if you may not care for the government, it's the rallying around the flag.



Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
IMO if war was to come it would be through one of 3 things; one, a false flag operation giving the excuse for an attack, two, a strike from Israel or three, a strike from the US.
All of which boil down to 'the threat' actually not being from Iran - although if Iran were to retaliate, as anyone else would, no doubt some would claim that unjustified!


Yeah, how dare Iran defend or retaliate?! How dare they!



Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
.....and if they are insane enough to use nuclear weapons (and/or contaminate huge tracts of Iran and subsequently Asia by bombing and destroying parts of Iran's nuclear installations......which they can not fully destroy because Iran has, unsportingly, buried so much) Israel and/or the USA will subject themselves to global pariah status thanks to the enormous innocent civillian death toll they will be responsible for creating.


And deservedly so.


Originally posted by sminkeypinkey

The whole thing is nuts and they should be talking properly and not threatening each other, but still, religion, ideology, history, habits and instincts are all hard to break, eh?


If the US held face to face talks with Iran, then perhaps the talking could properly be underway between the two.

It's all good and well for the EU to talk to Iran, but there comes a time when the US and Iran should be mature and meet themselves.



Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
Kind of makes war seem the easiest option (to some).


To profiteers, and those well away from the shooting, those who sit in their bunkers and armchairs.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join