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: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 10 2006 @ 08:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Low Orbit
why do you think Mahmoud wrote this letter to the President?


- Because by engaging in 'conversation' with the president of the USA, it
makes Mahmoud look more presidential to his people.
- Because he gets a political kick out of saying 'oh lookie at me, I can
make the USA jump'.
- Because he's just the same armed thug that took American hostages
decades ago and he'd really like to hold America hostage in some way
again and so he's using a nuke program to do so.
- Because he's just as nutz as the leader of N.Korea and he's taking
ques from him - Have temper tantrums and say you are going nuclear
so that the USA pays attention and you can get something from them
if you promise not to go any further with your nuclear program (all
the while you lie and continue to make nukes of course)
- Because he wants to play the world media ... he wants to look like a
good guy and/or he wants to try to clean up his image in the world
(after all his IDIOTIC comments) so he can further his own cause
(which isn't peace).


Do you think Mahmoud was writing in the hopes of preventing war with the US?

Nope. See the above comments.


[edit on 5/10/2006 by FlyersFan]




posted on May, 11 2006 @ 08:58 AM
link   
FlyersFan:

Because he wants to play the world media ... he wants to look like a
good guy and/or he wants to try to clean up his image in the world
(after all his IDIOTIC comments) so he can further his own cause
(which isn't peace).


He's more popular than Bush, who can't play the world media because everyone is too busy laughing at him and calling him an idiot.

We have two wackos head to head here.

The US should have at least done SOMETHING about the letter. If anything happens in Iran, or even in the US, it's not these two numbskulls who will suffer.

If the US was serious about peace, they would PUBLICLY respond and possibly, oh, I dunno, start diplomatic relations. What exactly do they have to lose?

They say a nuclear Iran is a danger to the world and yet they are not willing to TALK to them to try and prevent that danger.

Lockheed-Martin, Boeing, Raytheon and Northrupp-Grunman make no $$$ from peace.



posted on May, 11 2006 @ 12:51 PM
link   
Scary!


Some Middle East observers believe Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's letter to President Bush could be a precursor to war, based on a traditional Muslim pattern of offering acceptance of Islam before establishing it by force.

Robert Spencer, editor of Jihad Watch, says Ahmadinejad appears to be following the teachings of Muhammad, who gave specific instructions to followers as they engage in "holy war" against "those who disbelieve in Allah."



Real reason for the letter?



posted on May, 11 2006 @ 12:51 PM
link   
Double post

[edit on 11-5-2006 by jefferson101]



posted on May, 11 2006 @ 01:02 PM
link   

We increasingly see that people around the world are flocking towards a main focal point - that is the Almighty God. Undoubtedly through faith in God and the teachings of the prophets, the people will conquer their problems. My question for you is: "Do you not want to join them?"

The gist is this: Iran's president has just officially invited the United States to embrace Islam.

This is not good.


We are in troubles



posted on May, 11 2006 @ 01:20 PM
link   
I want to know how Ambassador Jakamo would of responded to the letter and how he would deal with Iran.

The reason why Mahmoud is more popular than Bush is because half of this country would rather see an Al Qaida attack on the U.S. again rather than us attack Iran.

While I know Ambassador Jakomo is a friend of peace and he would never condone violence, ... ever, one of these attacks is going to happen in the future, which one will it be?



posted on May, 11 2006 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Low Orbit
The reason why Mahmoud is more popular than Bush is because half of this country would rather see an Al Qaida attack on the U.S. again rather than us attack Iran.


What statistical source gives you the right to make such a ridiculous statement?

You have made some good points in your arguments so far, but you keep insisting upon making these kind of broad generalizations which, as far as I can tell, serve no purpose but to inflame opinion.

imo, it undermines your points by attempting to introduce rhetoric as data to the discussion.

Stick to demonstrable facts, or make it plain that you are voicing opinion only...misinformation/inflammatory crap are only making the search for solutions that much harder.



[edit on 5/11/2006 by apocalypticon, for an ill-considered remark
]

[edit on 5/11/2006 by apocalypticon]



posted on May, 11 2006 @ 02:59 PM
link   
i am curious, what is it that you believe the U.S. government hopes to achieve by entrenching itself in yet another conflict?

i am still a little credulous as to the war itself (when it starts i may be less so), but I can't understand why America wants (or may want) this.



posted on May, 11 2006 @ 03:58 PM
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.

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


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



you're on the right track. The international bankers want war, and the oil futures traders (well, the ones at the top). The good ol US gov't is just the sargeant at arms in this play, and the iranians the fodder. The letter made news all over the world. Maybe the US should have ignored it, but the play is written for a lively debate ending in a standoff, and then an "event" that will give westerners a popular reason to want war.

lessons learned from WWI, an unpopular war isn't very profitable

Pearl harbor
9/11

next ?

My guess is west coast of USA get gassed or nuked



posted on May, 11 2006 @ 04:04 PM
link   
There are a number of reasons why the U.S. leadership may want war.

As juicy as nd lucrative as the war in Iraq has been, it's not the monster pay-day that some in the world of defense contracting hoped for. A war with Iran would be much more lucrative.

Let's not forget that we've got a religously motivated leadership at the helm just now. Those who subscribe to that point of view see it as their duty to take the fight to "those people."

In amy major war, the government at hime grows. Iraw is not really a major war. Bureaucrats and elected leaders alike know that. Any war with Iran would require a vastly deeper committment. By extension, this means a much better shot a growing the government and gaining more power.



posted on May, 11 2006 @ 04:08 PM
link   
New York Sun Editorial
May 11, 2006


President Ahmadinejad's letter to President Bush, widely interpreted as a peaceful overture, is in fact a declaration of war. The key sentence in the letter is the closing salutation. In an eight-page text of the letter being circulated by the Council on Foreign Relations, it is left untranslated and rendered as "Vasalam Ala Man Ataba'al hoda." What this means is "Peace only unto those who follow the true path."

It is a phrase with historical significance in Islam, for, according to Islamic tradition, in year six of the Hejira - the late 620s - the prophet Mohammad sent letters to the Byzantine emperor and the Sassanid emperor telling them to convert to the true faith of Islam or be conquered. The letters included the same phrase that President Ahmadinejad used to conclude his letter to Mr. Bush. For Mohammad, the letters were a prelude to a Muslim offensive, a war launched for the purpose of imposing Islamic rule over infidels.



posted on May, 11 2006 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Brenden
It is a phrase with historical significance in Islam, for, according to Islamic tradition, in year six of the Hejira - the late 620s - the prophet Mohammad sent letters to the Byzantine emperor and the Sassanid emperor telling them to convert to the true faith of Islam or be conquered.


Hey Brenden,

This is the part of the whole thing which has interested me most since our own Prez was elected; the power of apocalyptic religious belief as a serious factor in the thoughts of our current batch of world leaders. I refer here primarily to those arising from Islam, Christianity, or Judaism. And to me it is an interesting question.

It is impossible to know to what degree apocalyptic beliefs of real "true believers"
actually influence their decision making (unless they tell us, of course), but...

I don't know about anyone else on this thread, but I grew up and have been a part of a denomination with some serious end-of-time beliefs and, personally, I think they have a lot more power to influence thought than non-adherents may understand.

You seem to have some knowledge of Islam; have you read these two books by David Cook?:

"Studies in Muslim Apocalyptic" (The Darwin Press, Princeton, New jersey, 2002)
or
"Contemporary Muslim Apocalyptic Literature" (Syracuse University Press, 2005)

For a good overview of the whole Judeo/Christian/Islamic apocalyptic worldview, a truly great series of 43 articles are contained in "The Encyclopedia of Apocalypticism" 3 vols. (Continuum, 1998-2000)

I would really like to know the degree to which any of these beliefs are truly influencing the thoughts/actions of any of the leaders of four of the main players in this thing: Iran, Israel, Britain, and America. Heck, toss Syria and Turkey in for good measure...



[edit on 5/11/2006 by apocalypticon]



posted on May, 11 2006 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
There are a number of reasons why the U.S. leadership may want war.

As juicy as nd lucrative as the war in Iraq has been, it's not the monster pay-day that some in the world of defense contracting hoped for. A war with Iran would be much more lucrative.

Let's not forget that we've got a religously motivated leadership at the helm just now. Those who subscribe to that point of view see it as their duty to take the fight to "those people."

In amy major war, the government at hime grows. Iraw is not really a major war. Bureaucrats and elected leaders alike know that. Any war with Iran would require a vastly deeper committment. By extension, this means a much better shot a growing the government and gaining more power.



Where do you guys come up with Bush is religiously motivated. Who thinks this up. All presidents go to church and use God in their speeches.



posted on May, 11 2006 @ 05:37 PM
link   
'the power of apocalyptic religious belief as a serious factor in the thoughts of our current batch of world leaders.' There is plenty of evidence to show that the Iranian leadership is preparing for the return of the Madhi, which shortly preceedes the end of the world.

Whether they actually truly believe this or use it simply as a method to excite the people of Iran for political purposes of retaining power, who knows.



posted on May, 11 2006 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by steve99Where do you guys come up with Bush is religiously motivated. Who thinks this up. All presidents go to church and use God in their speeches.


Hey Steve99,

I know you quoted someone else here; my concern is not that any leader is religious, but the degree to which certain honestly held beliefs influence action. It is impossible (I think) to know anyone's secret motivations for doing something, especially if that something is only to color decision making to some degree.

You're certainly right that political folks often have religious beliefs, some are honestly held and some, I suspect, are brought out simply to pander to particular groups. Or both.

I think President Bush has honestly held personal religious beliefs, it is the degree to which the Dispensationl Fundamentalist eschatology which accompanies his particular brand of Christianity actually influences his thoughts which is of concern to me.

And I admit to not knowing that...but I do believe that these can be powerful lenses for seeing the world.

And the same is true of Ahmadinejad...and any other figure which has the power to influence either foreign or domestic policies.

As in most things, the real issues are more complicated than we often realize, I suppose.



posted on May, 11 2006 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Brenden There is plenty of evidence to show that the Iranian leadership is preparing for the return of the Madhi, which shortly preceedes the end of the world.

Whether they actually truly believe this or use it simply as a method to excite the people of Iran for political purposes of retaining power, who knows.


I agree; and the Dispenasational Fundamentalists have their own ideas about the end of time which presuppose war on a major scale in the Middle East.

It is the degree to which any of these guys and gals are true believers willing to take that extra step, or simply use it to pander to the base, which I wonder about.

And believe me, the thought of an Atomic Iran doesn't bring me any pleasure...

So, are you familiar with any of those book titles I mentioned? 'Cause I'd be interested to know what you think of them.




posted on May, 11 2006 @ 06:15 PM
link   
I live a bit less than an hour away from San Francisco, If I can find the time out of my schedule to ask 10 San Franciscans who would they rather see attacked, the US by Al Qaida or Iran from the U.S I'm sure at least 5 would say attack the US.

If SF Mayor Gavin Newsom was asked he too would also probably want(I don't know what he'd publicly say) the US attacked if not in his own city. Think about the political implications for the Bush Administration if the US were attacked again from Al Qaida, this could finally be an issue Democrats could unite behind. If Al Qaida attacked S.F. Gavin Newsom would be on the hot track to becoming the next Democratic Presidential Candidate.

Apoco, has there EVER been a war THROUGHOUT HISTORY which was not motivated or fought for in the name of Religion, good luck finding one.

The ONLY thing the US has to gain from a war with Iran, is kicking out Iran's current political rift-raft in order to get some level-headed Iranian officials in there.
Anyone who is trying to fool themselves saying that the US is going to make money off of this war does not understand war.



posted on May, 11 2006 @ 06:35 PM
link   
Low Orbit,

Yeah...the war between Paraguay and Uruguay, and the "Soccer War" which was fought between two Central American countries during the 60's, whose name I now forget, come to mind...


Look...have you been reading my recent posts? It is precisely the apocalyptic religious element which concerns me the most, for 2 reasons:

1. It is a a part of something which goes to the very deepest parts of what some people hold to be true. I know this from personal experience; plus, it is generally recognized by psychologists (and, yes, I'll take my own advice and find a link if you want...)


and

2. It is very hard to distinguish rhetoric from practical belief in these matters. And yet, the stakes are of the utmost.

BTW, no fair using San Francisco to extrapolate to Liberals/Conservatives as a whole...I also live within 1 hour of The City, and it's city council is notorious for it's "offbeat" nature...I mean, look at Chris Daly fer cryin' out loud or Carol Migden


And I prefer Apoc...




[edit on 5/11/2006 by apocalypticon]



posted on May, 11 2006 @ 06:45 PM
link   
Uh O, didn't know you were so close to me Apoc, I better keep my voice down a bit then



"1. It is a a part of something which goes to the very deepest parts of what some people hold to be true. I know this from personal experience; plus, it is generally recognized by psychologists (and, yes, I'll take my own advice and find a link if you want...)

and

2. It is very hard to distinguish rhetoric from practical belief in these matters. And yet, the stakes are of the utmost."

I agree with both of these points however I see Iran spoon feeding its public a lot more than what the US is doing.

The Bush Administration have made it a point on many occasions not to drag religion into this and make it Christians vs. Muslims. I can not say the same about the Iranians.

What I believe is one of the core problems is what Islam's Mullahs teach about the West. If we are serious about stopping terrorism we need to stop these schools from teaching its students to hate the west. While I understand the religious schools in Iran are not as bad as say the schools in Syria or Saudi Arabia, regardless the US needs to start somewhere!



posted on May, 11 2006 @ 06:52 PM
link   
I think wehave a lot of good reasons to fear religious motivation in our leaders. Bush makes no secret of what motivates him. It's discomforting to know thatthe man with his finger on The Button think he'll be raptured before he can witness the resutls of his handiwork.

the same thing can be said of the Iranian leadership. Amadinajad really does think he's about to fight a battle foretold in prophecy. Both leaders are convinced of their future victories, based upon their preferred religious writings.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join