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.

 

U.S. government seriously needs/wants war with Iran

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 9 2006 @ 04:48 PM
link   
I was hardly surprised, but the U.S. government's response to the the letter by the Iranian president further convinces me that the U.S. government needs/wants a war with Iran and will do anything to get it.

I'm only aware of a few things the letter said, but I find it incredibly troubling that the U.S. talks about how it will employ diplomacy and use war only as a last resort, yet in response to this letter, they toss it as a joke and claim "this is not what we're talking about" or some (expletive) like that. If you ask me, its a clear expression of the U.S. government's stance on the issue and intentions. War and ONLY war.

I'm not saying that reading the letter and making something out of it would have changed anything for the better. But trying at making something out of the letter would not have done anything bad either. Nothing to lose. Especially considering this was the first time in 27 years that the Iranian government has tried to contact the U.S. It was worth a shot.

Great job, Right-Wing America. You have screwed up yet again.




posted on May, 9 2006 @ 07:15 PM
link   
can you tell us what the Iranian President said in the letter? Or at least what he proposed to do to resolve Iran's Nuclear Interests and to solve terrorism?



posted on May, 9 2006 @ 07:23 PM
link   
Well, it doesn't really seem like they were extending an olive branch....



The letter from President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made only an oblique reference to Iran's nuclear intentions, asking why "any technological and scientific achievement reached in the Middle East region is translated into and portrayed as a threat to the Zionist regime."

Otherwise, it lambasted Bush for his handling of the September 11 attacks, accused the media of spreading lies about the Iraq war and railed against the United States for its support of Israel. It questioned whether the world would be a different place if the money spent on Iraq had been spent to fight poverty.

"Would not your administration's political and economic standing have been stronger?" the letter said. "And I am most sorry to say, would there have been an ever-increasing global hatred of the American government?

www.cnn.com...


CX

posted on May, 9 2006 @ 07:24 PM
link   
I have to agree with you on this one, i am by no means feeling sorry for Iran as they've brought more than enough on themselves, but when i read about the response from Bush and his followers i actually felt quite sick.

As long as Iran does'nt take the mick too much, in my opinion any offer of talks or co-operation by what ever means is a good thing, certainly not something to be ridiculed. Bush, Rice and co are saying one thing and doing totaly the opposite if it does'nt get them the result they want, ie; war.

In fact theres very few issues that anger me any more, but the reaction to this letter from the Iranian president makes me boil! The sooner Bush eats another pretzel and offers them round his colleagues the better!


CX.



posted on May, 9 2006 @ 07:39 PM
link   
CX none of us know what the letter says for certain so there is no reason to get steamed about it yet. If you know what the letter says maybe you should enlighten us?



posted on May, 9 2006 @ 07:50 PM
link   
I agree,
If they are years and years off a bomb, then surely simply talking about ANY issues between the two is a starting point to GROW towards a strategy to ensure these two powerful nations dont come to conflict.

What did Mr Bush and his sidekix Rice&Chenney expect?
That Iran simply admit to its nuclear ambitions and declare they would talk about resolutions as long as the US and them agree the bomb is purely for DEFENSIVE measures?

Does anyone know?
In the movie, Sum of all Fears with Ben Affleck & Morgan Freeman, the US Scientists or UN Scientists or what not can test the radiation and discover WHERE exactly the material has come from?

Would this be the case with Irans Uranium?

If they bombed someone, would the US be able to definitivley scientifically calculate that it came from Iran ?

The only conclusion this letter draws,

Is that IRAN isnt scared of the US and its threats for WAR.
And that the USA is marching as to WAR.

Ultimately there is only ending for this crisis!



posted on May, 9 2006 @ 08:07 PM
link   
Just as with Iraq, the leader of Iran, has a difficult choice to make, accept the americans offer to back away from pursuing nuclear energy or possibly face an attack from us, war.

Mahmoud knows how well it went for Saddam. The choice is his, he knows the stakes. If you still think that means the U.S. is the aggressor I'll keep writing.



posted on May, 9 2006 @ 08:42 PM
link   
Here is a link to an NPR site which provides excerpts, as well as the full text, of Ahmadinejad's letter to Bush:

www.npr.org...

(I hope I formatted the link properly; have to reread the new rules for posting links)

there is also a link at the top to hear a discussion of possible issues with the letter.

The commentators point to Ahmadinejad's statement that "Liberal, Democratic systems" have failed over time, and that much of the world is turning towards regimes which incorporate some sort of monotheism, as a signal that the broader scope of the letter is aimed at places, like Indonesia, where Islam is in ascendence.

Ahmadinejad asks Bush why he doesn't practice what he claims to believe, as far as Jesus is concerned, in his approach to the world.

I listened to the broadcast at work today, and it was of some interest.



posted on May, 9 2006 @ 08:51 PM
link   
Exerpts are interesting. In a meal exerpts would be the salad. What you should realize is that exerpts do not give you the meat and potatoes of the argument. They do not give us the details about what the Iranian President proposed as a compromise to the issue of Iran pursuing Nuclear Power and Iran's involvement in terrorism.

You seem to be somewhat educated, why do you think Mahmoud wrote this letter to the President? Do you think Mahmoud was writing in the hopes of preventing war with the US? What did NPR say about it?



posted on May, 9 2006 @ 09:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Low Orbit
Exerpts are interesting. In a meal exerpts would be the salad. What you should realize is that exerpts do not give you the meat and potatoes of the argument. They do not give us the details about what the Iranian President proposed as a compromise to the issue of Iran pursuing Nuclear Power and Iran's involvement in terrorism.


Well, salad or not, if you actually go to the site (which is why I posted the link) you will also find, along with the excerpts, a link to the full text of the _/b]...it's in the box, about center-page, highlighted in blue.

There is also a link further up on the same page, of the actual recording of today's conversation on NPR.

If you click the link you can listen and make your own evaluation, rather than have it filtered through my lens...


As for my opinion on the letter, just shooting from the hip here...I think it's primary target was a broader world audience. Do I think he offered it in some kind of real hope of influencing Bush? I don't know...according to some reports, the man believes he is in some special relationship to the Mahdi; perhaps his references to Bush's religious beliefs are an honest appeal to conscience.

But I am getting pretty cynical in my old age...

And, yes, I understand the danger of extrapolating conclusions from excerpts...it's one of the first things they enlighten you about when it comes to research in the study of History...but thanks for the lecture anyway...I hadn't heard it in about 20 years


[edit on 5/9/2006 by apocalypticon]



posted on May, 9 2006 @ 09:58 PM
link   
I have read the "complete" letter and to me it seems like more threats from Iran. The Iranian President is knowingly using this letter as a ploy to the American Media outlets to make him look like the ambassador of peace, well he is not.

If Iran was truly only building a Nuclear Reactor for Energy purposes than why hide it from the UN for 18 years?

This letter was meant to divide the liberals from the conservatives on the idea of invading Iran. Liberals saw this letter and instantly knew that he was a nice guy after all and just wants to make energy for his country. While conservatives saw this and instantly thought this is blatant propaganda against the western world made to make Mini Mohmoud look like a hero.

Mohmoud understands now that it is late in the game and the only chance he has to save all 5ft 5 inches of himself is if he gets the liberals of this country on his side.

If Mahmoud, doesn't give up its Nuclear ambitions this year I expect to see Mahmoud Ahmadinejad decapitated by roundhouse kick either later this year or early next.

www.geocities.com...

www.thegreyeagle.com...

[edit on 9-5-2006 by Low Orbit]



posted on May, 9 2006 @ 11:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Low Orbit
Liberals saw this letter and instantly knew that he was a nice guy after all and just wants to make energy for his country. While conservatives saw this and instantly thought this is blatant propaganda against the western world made to make Mini Mohmoud look like a hero.


Just my opinion here, but this is exactly the kind of thinking which makes things difficult...you are assuming that all, or even most, Liberals/Conservatives reacted to the letter in the manner you describe.

The representation of complex issues in terms of black/white, either/or, is not helpful; in this case it simply serves to reinforce stereotypes about who has a more realistic view of the world..."Liberals" or "Conservatives".

Based only on my conversations with others, I think it is a minority of people who fit solidly into either of these camps on all issues anymore.

Personally, I think both terms have become counterproductive, as their real meanings have pretty much been replaced by knee-jerk stereotypes.

just my $.02...



posted on May, 9 2006 @ 11:18 PM
link   
so what should we do about this guy, Mahmoud? Should we let them have Nuclear Technology while they claim to have 40,000 suicide bombers ready to strike if the US attacks?



posted on May, 9 2006 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Low Orbit
so what should we do about this guy, Mahmoud? Should we let them have Nuclear Technology while they claim to have 40,000 suicide bombers ready to strike if the US attacks?


OK, I've seen this 40,000 suicide bombers thing way too much. Of course they have people ready to strike us if we attack them. We have 40,000 nukes to attack anyone who strikes us...we just don't tell everyone cause they already know. I think we should let them have it; if they don't have it already, they are going to get it eventually, and it's not right for only some countries to have it. Sure they may be "potential threats" if they do have the technology, but are Russia, the U.S., and Britain NOT potential threats if a war started. Anyone can use WMDs in a bad way, we shouldn't just assume that all of these majority-Muslim nations with lots of extremists are automatically going to use these weapons to "destroy freedom" or "instigate terrorism".



posted on May, 9 2006 @ 11:58 PM
link   
I agree that we are somewhat instigating terrorism because we are feeding into the Mullah's Propaganda however even before we were attacking the middle east the Mullah's were still talking crap about us. They are the cause of terror not western thought. We won't stop terrorism by giving them what they want.

Do you understand how much more they will be able to EXTORT from us once they have nukes?


and if they do make their way into the hands of say an Iranian Patriot bent on the west and detonate a nuke in one of our cities then what should we do?

[edit on 10-5-2006 by Low Orbit]



posted on May, 10 2006 @ 02:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Low Orbit

Do you understand how much more they will be able to EXTORT from us once they have nukes?[edit on 10-5-2006 by Low Orbit]


And how much has North Korea been able to extort from us with their much larger nuclear/conventional forces? And they are controlled by a real loose cannon as well.

No nation is going to allow itself to be associated in any way with a nuclear strike on either America, Israel, or any of America's other allies because they know it will mean a return to some kind of radiated stoneage for their own country. This is obviously just my opinion, but it is a fact that we have not had any nuclear attacks since America dropped two of 'em on Japan. And it is well known that we considered nuclear strikes during both Korea and Vietnam.

I believe the world knows we will use them if attacked, as would Russia, or Israel, or North Korea, or China...

Iran knows this as well. The real question here is, do the Mullah's care?

And who said Western thought was the cause of terrorism? I simply objected to your artificial division of Westerners into oversimplistic groupings of "Liberals" and "Conservatives"; and then making overbroad generalizations about how these people reacted to Ahmadinejad's letter.

And as far as Western thought/action goes, I don't think we can simply disallow the influence of Colonialism in this current mess. Nor can we overlook the Cold War, and it's imperative which caused us to overthrow Mossagadeh and support the Shah...and the Savak which came with him...and what that meant for the Iranian people.

None of this automatically transforms Iran under the Mullahs into some sort of paragon of innocence; it simply recognizes the complexity of the root causes of the issues now facing us. Religious zealotry, the failure to seperate "Church" from "State", competition for regional influence and resources, historical animosities, the list goes on and on...

This thread started on the topic of Ahmadinejad's letter to Bush and, along the way, you suggested that I "should realize that excerpts do not give you the meat and potatoes of the argument."

But if we aren't willing to try to learn as much about the history of the conflict as possible, then even the full text of the letter becomes simply an "excerpt" in itself: devoid of the much needed context.

I think I'm up to at least $.04 by now...



[edit on 5/10/2006 by apocalypticon]



posted on May, 10 2006 @ 02:27 AM
link   


Great job, Right-Wing America. You have screwed up yet again.



This has about as much to do with "right wing america" as it does with nuclear weapons, which is nothing. The right wingers are just the puppets and act as a deflection from the truth.

What is the truth? well after I learned what it was I was actually sick myself......

look at international banks and banking....therein lies the motive.


If you dont believe me look how differently the West reacted to the acquisition of nuclear weapons by india and pakistan.



posted on May, 10 2006 @ 02:44 AM
link   
Read this article, and you fully understand why Bush is in a need of war:

www.energybulletin.net...

Note: The reason why the UK supports America time and time again is perfectly explained, and really fits in history and the current scenario.



[edit on 10-5-2006 by Mdv2]



posted on May, 10 2006 @ 06:43 AM
link   
Do you remember 9/11?

"No nation is going to allow itself to be associated in any way with a nuclear strike on either America, Israel, or any of America's other allies because they know it will mean a return to some kind of radiated stoneage for their own country. This is obviously just my opinion, but it is a fact that we have not had any nuclear attacks since America dropped two of 'em on Japan. And it is well known that we considered nuclear strikes during both Korea and Vietnam. "

I agree with you, no Nation wants to be associated with a Nuclear attack on the West. If a nuke was given to a few trusted agents to be detonated in one of the US cities how would we figure out which country was behind it? Would we have enough evidence to seek justice?

Personally, I don't think we would have enough evidence so the US would be sitting at home vulnerable to another nuke attack still not knowing who was responsible for the first one?

Why are you not concerned about an attack like this?



posted on May, 10 2006 @ 07:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
I was hardly surprised, but the U.S. government's response to the the letter by the Iranian president further convinces me that the U.S. government needs/wants a war with Iran and will do anything to get it.

Conjecture on your part.
The U.S. response was indeed "hardly surprising" being the letter said nothing concerning the diplomatic issues at hand. Thus, of what importance, other than your reference to "27 years," diplomatically, did the letter have, sweatmonicaIdo? Therefore, the U.S. response was one of continued diplomacy, relevant to the issues at hand, not some long-winded diatribe.




I'm only aware of a few things the letter said

Would you like a link to the entire letter, then?





...but I find it incredibly troubling that the U.S. talks about how it will employ diplomacy and use war only as a last resort...

Hold on here, the U.S. has not said anything about war against Iran. What the U.S., as with the UK, France, among other nations seeking full accountability of Iran's nuclear program, have said is that they will continue to seek diplomatic means to resolve this issue.




...yet in response to this letter, they toss it as a joke and claim "this is not what we're talking about" or some (expletive) like that.

For one who has not read or is not "aware" of but "a few things" in the Ahmanutjob's letter, your commentary is qualified by simply those "few things"? If the Ahmanutjob letter was diplomatic, then the issue at hand was what, sweatmonicaIdo, Iran's continued non-compliance with the NPT? Iran's continued ignorance of the UN? Ahmanutjob's long-winded diatribe that had nothing and said nothing diplomatically concerning the issue at hand and that is before the UN? Therefore, the U.S. was more than justified in saying "'this is not what we're talking about' or some (expletive) like that."





If you ask me, its a clear expression of the U.S. government's stance on the issue and intentions. War and ONLY war.

Pure conjecture on your part, one that simply lacks a real-world diplomatic understanding.





I'm not saying that reading the letter and making something out of it would have changed anything for the better. But trying at making something out of the letter would not have done anything bad either. Nothing to lose. Especially considering this was the first time in 27 years that the Iranian government has tried to contact the U.S. It was worth a shot.

The U.S. response was that they will continue to seek diplomatic avenues for resolving the issues at hand. Apparently, that was or is not good enough for you--Bush and the U.S. should have simply opened the doors to Ahmanutjob, thus in doing so, give Ahmanutjob the impression that everything he wrote in the letter was correct? Ummm, no. "Nothing to lose" in this matter and issue is that the U.S. kept the doors of and to diplomacy open.




Great job, Right-Wing America. You have screwed up yet again.


Clueless does not begin to describe your perception on and of the matters and issues here.





seekerof

[edit on 10-5-2006 by Seekerof]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join