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.

 

Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei rejects talks with USA. Duck and cover Iran…

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 12:28 PM
link   
Souljah,

Nobody knows, some sources claim it has already happened while others say 10 years. Nobody knows for sure when or if Iran can develop a weapon except Iran. Anyone saying otherwise is guessing, and guessing based on open source data doesn't make someone an expert.

ThePieMan,

I think you make a fair point about Pakistan, but not India. Remember, the IAEA is not a requirement for nuclear technology, but there are privlages and disadvantages in joining. The advantage is you can partispate in the network for technology transfers and training to develop nuclear technology, but you have to follow the rules. Iran is a member, so they have to follow the rules. By being a member, both China and Russia have spent considerable resources (at considerable cost btw) in helping Iran develop nuclear technology. Both countries want to remain partisipants in that economic venture, which is why Iran doesn't pull out of the IAEA, Iran can't afford to piss off China and Russia after they have made so much investment, not to mention Iran needs both of them to continue nuclear development.

India on the other hand is not apart of the IAEA, and developed nuclear technology from within without other countries assistance. It is why the US forced India to require IAEA supervision on all nuclear trade that takes place between the US and India. That agreement insures that the nuclear technology India may gain by the US will not be used for military purposes, which is ok with both India and the US.

Because India already has reactors for military purposes, they developed those reactors and weapons themselves, without outside interference. The reason India doesn't tell anyone how many nuclear weapons they have or disclose their overall nuclear capability is to prevent Pakistan and China from knowing. The lack of public information gives them the advantage. That is one of the reasons why it is so contraversial, well, for China. China and close friends of China (Iran) are the only countries that partake in the outrage, because they know that by the US helping India develop more nuclear reactors, India will be able to develop their nuclear military programs quicker since the reactors will no longer share dual obligation of producing weapons and generating power.

There is a real lack of outrage in Europe, Russia, and obvious support in countries like Brazil even regarding India, and there is a good reason for that. The reason is, they all bid on the nuclear work themselves, France and Russia both specifically bid it actually, but the US beat them both for the contracts in India. They don't speak in outrage in the future because they know the next country soon to be in a very similar situation is Brazil, which continues to move to a non oil producing power system country wide, which will result in several nuclear technology jobs that both France and Russia hope to bid on.

Pakistan, .... don't get me started, US policy with Pakistan on virtually every issue makes no sense to me.




posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 12:53 PM
link   
Like some have said (and I have a 100 times), there will be NO invasion or occupation of Iran. But their offensive military abilities and infrastructure will be completely and utterly destroyed.



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by skippytjc
Like some have said (and I have a 100 times), there will be NO invasion or occupation of Iran. But their offensive military abilities and infrastructure will be completely and utterly destroyed.


Oh, skippy!
Do you honestly believe that Iranians will act as a good sport and say "Thank you America. We deserved this." Do you honestly want to severely uppset 70 milion people? Do you know what happens when you give a bloody nose to a mental case?

I have trouble understanding this mania to bomb a country that half of Americans can't even find it on a map.



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 01:41 PM
link   
Skippy is right. Geographically and militarily, Iran is not a place that is primed for occupation. The idea will be to destroy their military assets and assist dissidents inside Iran in regime change. It took the media a long, long time to figure this out, and it still took some experts to point it out to them but Iran is between Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran had more to do with terrorism than Saddam did, but you have to cover your flanks and take the weakest points first. The fact that Bush never acted against the other members of the "axis of evil" has only strengthened the feeling in Iran that we will not really do anything, especially since Russia and China are so opposed. If the US takes action against Iran, I am most curious to see what China does.



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by yanchek


Do you honestly want to severely uppset 70 milion people? Do you know what happens when you give a bloody nose to a mental case?



The US has pissed off nearly all of Europe and somehow we have survived. Iran doesn't have the ability to do anything if they do get upset... Now, if you tell me that they do, the only way that they can is by having terrorist assets already in place, so doesn't that kind of justify the US taking out their govt.?

So what does happen when you give a "mental case" a bloody nose?



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by hogtie

Originally posted by yanchek
Do you honestly want to severely uppset 70 milion people? Do you know what happens when you give a bloody nose to a mental case?


The US has pissed off nearly all of Europe and somehow we have survived.


There was not "mental case component" there.


Iran doesn't have the ability to do anything if they do get upset... Now, if you tell me that they do, the only way that they can is by having terrorist assets already in place, so doesn't that kind of justify the US taking out their govt.?


Iran can triple or quadruple or put any kind of multiplier to its current support of terrorist groups (which I don't know at what level it is now), and it can leak nuclear technology to God knows who, just to get even. They could claim it was a dissident scientist. Blah blah blah.

Or, they can offer various insentives to the Chinese and Russian oil concerns, just to get them deeply involved. In that case, I believe, various modern anti-aircraft systems will mysteriously find their way across rugged borders and into Iran.

Besides, after whatever massive bombing of Iran that you guys seem to be talking about, you can pretty much guarantee that the mullahs will remain in power for the next 100 years -- an act of US agression will solidify the nation rather than split it. I didn't make it up -- there have been articles about that.



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aelita

Iran can triple or quadruple or put any kind of multiplier to its current support of terrorist groups (which I don't know at what level it is now), and it can leak nuclear technology to God knows who, just to get even. They could claim it was a dissident scientist. Blah blah blah.

Or, they can offer various insentives to the Chinese and Russian oil concerns, just to get them deeply involved. In that case, I believe, various modern anti-aircraft systems will mysteriously find their way across rugged borders and into Iran.

Besides, after whatever massive bombing of Iran that you guys seem to be talking about, you can pretty much guarantee that the mullahs will remain in power for the next 100 years -- an act of US agression will solidify the nation rather than split it. I didn't make it up -- there have been articles about that.


Do you mean the nuclear technology that does not exist? That we should not be taking action against? And the only people who would believe it was a "dissident scientist" are people who are looking for excuses for Iran in the first place and not interested in actually fixing the problem.

As for oil incentives to the Russians and Chinese, they are already doing that. Why do you think those two countries are balking, besides the fact that they have been already selling the AA systems that you mentioned. France, Germany, Russia, and China did the same thing in Iraq, which is why they were so adamantly opposed to invasion. The could sell hardware and get oil. Iran is no different. Under the last US President Russia helped Iran develop its nuclear ambitions.

The concerns you mentioned are not future, they are present, and all the more reason that Iran should be dealt with.

60 years ago, the destruction of Dresden and Tokyo is what I would consider massive bombing. Precise bombing of nuclear and military installations is not "massive". Yes there will be innocent people killed, but it is not Dresden.



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by hogtie
Precise bombing of nuclear and military installations is not "massive". Yes there will be innocent people killed, but it is not Dresden.


I read somewhere that our intelligence on the exact locations of bunkers contaning components of the Iran's nuclear program is extremely poor and the locations can be deep and hardened. In this case, you can get only the negative outcome of the bombing -- sure, you wiped out their above ground facilities, but cemented their resolve to develop a nuke, outside any control or supervision of international bodies. It will take longer and will cost more, but the nation that was bombed (bloody nose factor) will go through the sacrifice of doing that.



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 03:33 PM
link   
But they are already developing a nuke outside of international control or supervision. And we don't have to hit everything, just enough to put off the developement, then do it again when they get close again. Besides, its not the people of Iran demanding a nuke, it is the govt. In the US, we can make demands of the govt. In Iran, they can't. That's why a manditory religious dress code will probably be in effect there this year, if it isn't already. I do not want to see people of that country harmed, but they've got religious fanatics at the wheel, and if something isn't done now, while nuclear retaliation is not an option, if they get the bomb the likelyhood of millions of Iranians suffering is too great to contemplate. The longer we wait, the more complicated, and more deadly the situation becomes to both us and them.



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 03:40 PM
link   


Iran declared war on the US in the late 70's when it abducted US citizens.


The US declared war on Iran in the early 50's when we overthrew their elected leader and put a dictatorship in his place. Why did we do it? Because he had the nerve to try to ensure Iran's oil profits went to Iran, instead of the US and UK.

If it wasn't for US meddling, there would have been no Shah, and thus no theocracy to overthrow him. A little reminder of the facts before we get too comfortable on our high horses here...



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 03:44 PM
link   
This is my take on it.

There are a few who say that taking over Iraq was due to bad intelligence (bs). Some say it was to liberate the Iraqi people (bs). And most say it was due to oil (basically correct). It isn't because America is greedy and wants to own all the oil. My thinking is, that it wants to secure the oil for themselves. China is growing a lot, but one thing that holds them back is natural resources. I believe that if their demand is strong enough they will invade oil rich countries or protect countries even if they are islamic extremists.

Now here comes America, seeing China making all these agreements and friends, and trying to manipulate the oil for themselves and planning on bringing America to its knees, so they also need to secure oil. As America and China are the largest competitors. Iraq is easy enough to take over. America, afterwards, builds permanent military bases, shoots up oil production to now 3 million barrels a day.

American bases are EVERYWHERE surrounding Russia and China now. Why?

Will the US bomb Iran?

What is the real reason? Is it to lessen China's natural resource intake so they invade other countries to make them seem like agressors?

It isn't just black and white.

Just think about it, If China invades a country due to not enough natural resources:

America will scream look at what they are doing!
England will be like "ohhhh mah gawd"
France and Germany will be like "They are trying to take over oil"
Israel will be like "They are supporters of terrorists"
Japan will be like "Oh no we could be next"
The EU will condemn the aggression
The UN will condemn the aggression

There in lies possible World War 3 scenario.

[edit on 27-6-2006 by RetinoidReceptor]



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex

Because he had the nerve to try to ensure Iran's oil profits went to Iran, instead of the US and UK.



Um, given the equity of profit sharing within the middle east these days, I don't think saying that he would have made sure the oil profits went to the country is... well, lets say that there is no precident for that argument. Likely it would have gone into the pockets of the ruling family and party. So how were the Iranians any worse off?

And yes, the US and Great Britain made many countries puppets after WWII, but it was mostly a race to do it before the Soviets did, that great paragon of humanity and equality. Doesn't make it morally right, but it does make it strategically important, and not necesarily evil. People always goes back to the "its all about oil" argument, but its not just that. That is too easy of an answer.



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by RetinoidReceptor

American bases are EVERYWHERE surrounding Russia and China now. Why?



I think you are on the right track, but try to think of China as pre WWII Japan. US bases have been around China for a long time now, and actually have been reducing in number. China sees the US as medling in its own back yard, which, for good or bad, we are. China wants to exert its own power it its immediate neighborhood. The biggest problem with China is that they are doing what we do/did. Funny, isn't it?



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by hogtie
There are some things to consider when picking on poor mis-understood Iran.

Iran declared war on the US in the late 70's when it abducted US citizens.


Much as I agree with you about Jerry Falwell et al... it is worth remembering that the mullahs came to power as a reaction to years of the Shah's rule. The Shah was put in power by Kermit Roosevelt of the CIA, who, with lots of slush money which he used to rent a mob, deposed the democratically elected President Mossadegh, whose crime was to kick out the US and UK oil interests and attempt to use the oil revenues to benefit his country.

The US propped up the Shah and trained his secret police/death squad force SAVAK.

After many years the mullahs organised a revolt. The US embassy was known to the locals as "the nest of spies".

Just trying to explain why the US is detested in that part of the world. It's not so much "they hate us for our freedoms" as "they hate us for the freedoms we took away from them".



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 04:46 PM
link   
Rich23,

You're right about everything you said, but I honestly believe that the mullahs would have overthrown any govt. in place that would not have maintained strict Islamic standards. US involvement with the Shah just brought it around more conveniently. Also, given the quality of heads of state everywhere, I can't believe that the money would have gone to the benefit of Iran. That is a very big "what if..." for me.

One last thing: we may have trained their secret police, but the SAVAK was made up of fellow Iranians. Just like the KGB was made up of fellow Soviets. We can show them what to do, but they do it to their own people. Its like blaming a book that inspires a murder. I'm not condoning it, just saying "you can lead a horse to water..."



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by yanchek
I have trouble understanding this mania to bomb a country that half of Americans can't even find it on a map.


Its viagra for the mental and moral impotence.

Its like that study that found political bias gives people a rush like coc aine, I'm sure
a study of Skippy's brain would show the same rush as he ponders the destruction
of country after country.

It is this kind of mania we fear in world leaders, and that
result in the disgrace of our militaries when they slaughter innocent women and children.

Take Skippy's and his ilks internet away and they'd have to spout his bloodlust at a Klan meeting or white power group. Same symptoms, same mental disorder.



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Legalizer

It is this kind of mania we fear in world leaders, and that
result in the disgrace of our militaries when they slaughter innocent women and children.

Take Skippy's and his ilks internet away and they'd have to spout his bloodlust at a Klan meeting or white power group. Same symptoms, same mental disorder.


You assume two very ignorant things.

1. That our military (I assume you meant that as a whole, not individuals) slaughters innocent women and children.

2. That I am white and racist.

Both are amusing until I consider the fact that you may be able to vote.



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by skippytjcIf anybody here is not yet convinced Iran is hell bent on making nuclear weapons for offensive attacks I don’t know what else they need to do to convince you other than launching them.


Or how about actually finding one.... That would seem to be the next logical step of finding proof, right? Why all the exaggeration and propaganda when there is not even physical evidence such a weapon exists?



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 07:21 PM
link   
I guess I'm in favor of having Iran build their nuclear weapons and use 'em against the United States of America just to wipe out the Great Satan from the planet. Nuke all American devils...er... infidels.

Anybody with me on it?



No? Guess not. Sarcasm doesn't do well with some folks saying the US should do nothing against Iran on the account on Iraq, Afghanistan, and all the evil BS "woes" the US did for other countries.


According to rich23's twisted logic, the US is the Great Satan and deserve to be terminated because it is "evil".



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 07:25 PM
link   
You all have it upside down.

As a signer of the IPT, Iran have the same rights as any other member to process fuel for power production. That is what Premier Ahmadinjad insists on doing. Western pressure simply causes Iran to dig in and insist on its treaty rights.
With other words Iran has by the treaty the same right as all other countries to produce nuclear electric power and all parts needed for this. They don't need any special permission from US, UN, IAEA or the rest of the world.

The bigger threats to world peace surely are US/Indian designs on a nuclear program outside the limits of the NPT, and US plans to build newer and more powerful nuclear weapons in violation of the NPT.

Even if Iran did make nuclear weapons, they have no rockets that reach even half the world. Considering the 200 nuclear bombs Israel has as well as US' own, Iran will never be a threat. The fear you all show is based on US government propaganda.

Dont be afraid.

[edit on 27-6-2006 by Ghaele]




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join