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.

 

Why dosen't the US want Iran to have nukes.

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 12 2006 @ 10:13 AM
link   
Why is it that the US would risk war to keep Iran from having nukes. When other countries have them.
One reason and one reason only, they will sell them one to some terrorist organization and it will end up in mid town Manhattan. I don't understand how some of you can't see this.




posted on May, 12 2006 @ 10:24 AM
link   
Gee, I don’t know… Maybe it’s because they have been threatening everyone in earshot?



posted on May, 12 2006 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by El Tiante
Gee, I don’t know… Maybe it’s because they have been threatening everyone in earshot?


This thread is about why US is so badly against iran acquiring nuke technology, not about iranian president.
you are so against iranian pres. acquiring nuke weapons, I could assure you he will not be able to acquire any. how do I know?
We all know iranians are at least 10 years away from building a nuke and another decade from building a delivery system. and of course, according to the iranian const., one couldnot run for presidency after 2 consecutive 4 years term, just like the US.

And back to the topic, I guess it's got more to do with iranian geopolitical position, oil and gas reserves (2nd after Saudi arabia and Russia respectively, and probably the first in terms of amount of energy), etc. us will invade iran, but not a nuclear armed iran



posted on May, 12 2006 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by steve99
One reason and one reason only, they will sell them one to some terrorist organization and it will end up in mid town Manhattan. I don't understand how some of you can't see this.


and that one reason is the most flawed one ever, one of which has been debucked on ATS so many times it becoming a joke.

if that was the case Iran would have sold terrorists Bio/chemical weapons which it has plenty of, and the beuty with those is that it keeps infrastructure intact.

like the US and other countries that provide weapons to movements (which suit their countries intrests) Iran does the same



[edit on 12-5-2006 by bodrul]



posted on May, 12 2006 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by proprog

Originally posted by El Tiante
Gee, I don’t know… Maybe it’s because they have been threatening everyone in earshot?


This thread is about why US is so badly against iran acquiring nuke technology, not about iranian president.
you are so against iranian pres. acquiring nuke weapons, I could assure you he will not be able to acquire any. how do I know?
We all know iranians are at least 10 years away from building a nuke and another decade from building a delivery system. and of course, according to the iranian const., one couldnot run for presidency after 2 consecutive 4 years term, just like the US.

And back to the topic, I guess it's got more to do with iranian geopolitical position, oil and gas reserves (2nd after Saudi arabia and Russia respectively, and probably the first in terms of amount of energy), etc. us will invade iran, but not a nuclear armed iran



I think if the US wanted to invade Iran they would do it if it had nukes or not.
I think the US is worried about a known terrorist state dealing nuclear arms to other Islamic terrorists. That may someday end up in a western city. And when that happens all hell will break loose.
If the Iranians are 10 years away then why have they bought missles now?



posted on May, 12 2006 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by steve99
I think if the US wanted to invade Iran they would do it if it had nukes or not.
I think the US is worried about a known terrorist state dealing nuclear arms to other Islamic terrorists. That may someday end up in a western city. And when that happens all hell will break loose.
If the Iranians are 10 years away then why have they bought missles now?


lets go east/soth/north/west of Iran and you will see many countries which do not have the capibility for nukes still have Missiles capaible of carrying them.
almost all missiles can be used to acrry a nuclear tipped warhead.

unknown terrorist state?
like?
and reason for them being an unknown terrorist state



posted on May, 12 2006 @ 11:38 AM
link   
Lets see, they have oil, Nuclear knowhow, and willing to give that info to whom ever wants it. =$$$$ cha ching

Also means people there will love him, and many other countries will back them up. = large army

If they had nuclear weapons, and everyone knows that he is not afraid to use them....yikes...there is self defence = power.


Gee I have no idea why the U.S. doesnt want him to have Nuclear power or a Nuclear bomb. Way too close for check mate.



posted on May, 12 2006 @ 01:37 PM
link   
Jeez, did the first few responders bother to read beyond the title??????



posted on May, 12 2006 @ 10:43 PM
link   
The most likely reason IMO is that the US is currently trying to restructure that area, under whatever vision it has, including Iran. Iran is ideologically and enemy of the US, and when you combine this with their policies which in many ways counters what the US wants for that region, it's obvious nukes would kill Americas current project for a future Middle East. It would strengthen them and their policies, and technically make invasion impossible. Something the US doesn't want.



posted on May, 15 2006 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by steve99
One reason and one reason only, they will sell them one to some terrorist organization and it will end up in mid town Manhattan.


This gets weirder and weirder by the minute. I don't think they should be allowed to have them due to every other word coming from the regime's mouth is "death to america." That would be enough for me.

I don't think it is a good thing to get your country all stirred up for the last 20 years telling everyone that it is america's fault for all of their problems. It is really? They didn't like the shah and they wanted him gone.

They wanted a revolution and they got one. They wanted things to get better. Did they get better? Better for whom? Their goverment has gotten stinking rich at the people's expense. Are they any better than the shah? No. The choice was theirs. They made their choice and it is completely on them to deal with the consequences of their actions.

All of the students that backed a religious regime thought that they knew everything and how much better their country would be with a goverment of religion and morals and ethics. In the end, they got the very same thing that the shah gave them, but they also lost their political status at the same time. At least the shah gave them stature in the world's eyes as a powerfull regional entity with the latest technology in their hands and even the president of the the us not having a problem with them having nuclear technology. They gave that all up and have been crying about it ever since.

Well cry me a fricken river. Live with your choices. If they were bad choices, change your mind and get rid of the nutjobs that run your country and get your status back. Then you can sell your cars and oil to the entire world and make money for yourselves instead of those in power. You can live in a world where you are not afraid of someone sending their airforce to bomb your crap. Live in a place where you don't worry that you may disappear after speaking your mind.

Make your country great again and prove the west wrong instead of being a footnote in an encyclopedia that says "the nation which ended abruptly after posturing over nuclear wepons."



posted on May, 15 2006 @ 01:21 PM
link   
Steve,

For one thing, Iran "CLAIMS" it's nuclear program is "ONLY" to be used to produce power (electricity).

Since your tittle is "Why dosen't the US want Iran to have nukes."
I must conclude you agree that Irans nuclear program is designed to produce nuclear weapons, not just power.

Now back to your thread

1) Iranian pres keeps making threats of a missle/nuclear nature to many countries, would be one reason to prevent Iran from having nukes.
It is also a proven fact that Iran leads rallies saying death to ALL AMERICANS, death to all Isrealies........, yes this is the country I want having nuclear weapons.
Frankly, I do believe they are stupid enough to use them as offensive weapons.

2) Iran has been taking very public actions that most people around the world see as Iran trying to goat the US/Allies into attacking them.

3) It is a well proven fact that Iran supports Hamas-remember the 50 million they gave them-, a terrorist group. I believe that they support many terrorist groups.

4) I do think Iran would give a nuclear weapon to a terrorist group to use on the US/Allies. That way they get what they want and try to act innocent like they did not do it.



posted on May, 15 2006 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Why doesn't the US want Iran to have nukes.



Simple. Because Israel says so.

And since Israel can do nothing about it without setting off a Middle-East wide war (where all Arab nations attempt to invade or destroy Israel once they set foot on Iranian land), they will get you to do it. At no cost whatsoever to them. In money or blood.

I mean, Iran can have a nuke, but to be able to actually attack America with it is practically an impossibility.

And one nuke wouldn't do much but seal their own fate.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki being destroyed didn't destroy all of Japan. If a nuclear bomb wiped out Detroit, America would still survive.

But again, they couldn't launch one that far.

-jako






[edit on 15-5-2006 by Jakomo]



posted on May, 15 2006 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by NeoQuest
The most likely reason IMO is that the US is currently trying to restructure that area, under whatever vision it has, including Iran. Iran is ideologically and enemy of the US, and when you combine this with their policies which in many ways counters what the US wants for that region, it's obvious nukes would kill Americas current project for a future Middle East. It would strengthen them and their policies, and technically make invasion impossible. Something the US doesn't want.


Nice answer, Jakomo.

NeoQuest, what the hell gives the US the right to re-construct the middle east? Because of PNAC?
What America wants for the ME shouldn't be the issue here.

And the "they'll sell them to terrorists" idea is laughable. FIRST OFF, if Iran REALLY wanted nukes, they wouldn't be out in the open defying the US. All they would have to do is go to somebody like Russia through the black market and BUY nukes!
Second, terrorists who want to nuke the US could go to a number of players in the black market and buy nukes; why the hell would they wait 10 years for the Iranians to build ONE?


(BTW, the "real" terrorists who would nuke a US city have no need for black market nukes. They're in control of over 20,000 nukes already...
)



posted on May, 15 2006 @ 05:40 PM
link   
IRT mrmonsoon

1. The united states has surpassed almost all countries when it comestosponsering terrorists (when it suits its intrests) aka the teleban alqaida andso on,
they created and said they were supporting a freedommovemnet who were fighting occupation, Iran vise versa does the same.
foronecountry they are terrorists others they are freedomfighters (what ever you choose to call them)

2. read small giant awakens Israel can also wipe iran off the map.

3. read my reply again about Iran giving nukes to movements, and try to back it up logicaly.



apoligies if my spelling is off or if there spaces missing
(i hate typing on laptops)



posted on May, 15 2006 @ 05:42 PM
link   
I found this link while looking for something unrelated.This would seem an excellent article and might answer a few questions regarding why we do not want Iran to have or enrich Uranium. It makes a lot of sense now why we are trying to stop them.



In the background of the political joust about Iran, a few countries are reshaping the world. They are taking possession of the global nuclear fuel market. New IAEA regulations should keep newcomers away. The US, UK, France, Germany, Russia, China and Japan will become world’s nuclear filling stations. Under the auspices of the IAEA these suppliers will dictate the rules, the prices and the currencies they want to get paid in. Iran has become the pretext and test case for their plans. The problems of tomorrow’s world economy are being shaped today.
External Linky




posted on May, 16 2006 @ 04:27 AM
link   
I think were focusing on the wrong target. If we didn't have such decieving leadership in this country we would'nt have all these problems to begin with. The government is constantly pushing lies to the people as if they are zombies who absorb. I just cant wait till all the people have had enough of this bull# and break out of their shell. Its happening now but it needs to happen on a more progressive rate. Let the people decide.



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 04:44 AM
link   
The nuclear energy program Iran is working on is not the real reason the US wants to invade Iran. I neither would like to see Iran in possession of nuclear weapons, but it's just a cover for the US propaganda machine.

The actual reason Bush is going to invade Iran, is to prevent them from realizing the EUR oil bourse.

A very informative article written by Krassimir Petrov explains in detail why.

We should bear in mind that the US intelligence and thus the government is not reliable at all if we refer to the Iraq invasion

[edit on 16-5-2006 by Mdv2]



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 05:05 AM
link   


1. The united states has surpassed almost all countries when it comestosponsering terrorists (when it suits its intrests) aka the teleban alqaida andso on,


Absolutly correct. The only major "terrorist" connections associated to Iran have to do with the liberation of the occupied territories. I.E. organizations that oppose the founding of Israel. I.E Hamas etc.

Many people just happen to believe that they are terrorist organizations because these organizations work AGAINST American and for that matter Western interests in the area, and consequently are painted that way by western media. Remember in the middle east these organizations have popular support and are known as "freedom fighters".


In response to the thread, I believe the U.S doesn't want Iran to be a nucleur power because it cements Irans role as a regional power in the worlds most valuable oil region. The u.s is used to being able to do what it wants in the region without having to ask for Iranain permision, and since America's pride was hurt with the overthrow of the Shah and the embassy hostige situation, the last thing America wants to do is have to negotiate with Iran.

To me it seems Iran is being more flexable in todays situation, evidence of which is in Irans' letter to George Bush. Remember Iran has just as much (perhaps more) reasons not to trust American foreign policy. ie. overthrow of the democraticly elected president Mosadeq in the 50's, engineered by the C.I.A.

The solution here i think is through the opening of open dialogue between the two countries. I believe America is holding back the peace process through refuseing to do this.

IMO this is not about nucleur weapons.




posted on May, 16 2006 @ 05:48 AM
link   
The Irani are a serious threat to the United States, just like North Korea. Both believe the United States is the devil and must be destroyed. It's only a matter of time before one of them sends a nuke at us with the letters USA MUST DIE on it.

I think the part of where they hate us comes from our constantly interaction in their society and our enormous wealth.

Well that's why Iran hate's America. For you see the Irani believe they are some kind of super race, like the Nazies and they believe the United States is to blame for they haven't become a super power like they were for thousands of years.

If only they knew how America was really like they would stop all of this nonesense and realize only half of America's society is so grand. The other half, the southern half is about as poor and underdevelope as a West African Nation.



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 08:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by xman_in_blackx

Originally posted by steve99
One reason and one reason only, they will sell them one to some terrorist organization and it will end up in mid town Manhattan.


They wanted a revolution and they got one. They wanted things to get better. Did they get better? Better for whom? Their goverment has gotten stinking rich at the people's expense. Are they any better than the shah? No. The choice was theirs. They made their choice and it is completely on them to deal with the consequences of their actions.

All of the students that backed a religious regime thought that they knew everything and how much better their country would be with a goverment of religion and morals and ethics. In the end, they got the very same thing that the shah gave them, but they also lost their political status at the same time. At least the shah gave them stature in the world's eyes as a powerfull regional entity with the latest technology in their hands and even the president of the the us not having a problem with them having nuclear technology. They gave that all up and have been crying about it ever since.

Well cry me a fricken river. Live with your choices. If they were bad choices, change your mind and get rid of the nutjobs that run your country and get your status back. Then you can sell your cars and oil to the entire world and make money for yourselves instead of those in power. You can live in a world where you are not afraid of someone sending their airforce to bomb your crap. Live in a place where you don't worry that you may disappear after speaking your mind.

Make your country great again and prove the west wrong instead of being a footnote in an encyclopedia that says "the nation which ended abruptly after posturing over nuclear wepons."




Hey , this is from wikipedia:

en.wikipedia.org...

"During the Iran hostage crisis, the Republican challenger Ronald Reagan feared a last-minute deal to release the hostages, which would hand incumbent Jimmy Carter a goodwill vote winning the election.

Due to the release of the hostages at the precise moment of Reagan's inauguration on January 20, 1981, rumors surfaced that the Reagan campaign made a secret hostage deal with the Iranian government whereby the Iranians would hold the hostages until Reagan was inaugurated, ensuring that Jimmy Carter would lose the 1980 presidential election.

It is alleged that then-vice presidential candidate George H.W. Bush secretly visited Paris on October 19, 1980, along with several senior U.S. senators (John Tower, John Heinz) and William Casey (then Reagan's campaign chairman and later his CIA director) to meet with representatives of Iran's religious regime to exchange security assurances and arms in exchange for holding the hostages through to the end of the 1980 election campaign. Reports confirming that such a meeting did in fact take place have surfaced from former French, Russian, and Israeli intelligence agents.

The hostages were in fact released at the precise moment of Reagan's inauguration on January 20, 1981, supporting these rumors that the Reagan campaign did in fact make a secret hostage deal with the Iranian government. Two separate congressional investigations as well as several investigave journalists looked into the charges, with inconclusive results. Many of the participants in events surrounding these alleged events have died under mysterious circumstances including John Tower (airplane crash), John Heinz (airplane crash, the day before Tower), and William Casey (sudden brain hemorage). A congressional review was conducted by the Senate Armed Services Committee under the chairmanship of John Tower (see Tower Commission).


If this is true, American government helped that regime in place! at the time of hostage crisis Iranian Prime minister had resigned in protest of the hostage situation and by negotiating with them and giving them the green light to hold hostages longer!!!

Please let me know what you think of this article.

[edit: external source tags]

[edit on 5/16/2006 by 12m8keall2c]







 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join