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 is Iran a threat to the US?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 08:55 PM
link   
So... can anyone answer this question for me?

I'm hearing a lot of hype about Iran being such a threat to the US but... I can't quite see how. Do they have nuclear-tipped ICBMs? No. Do they have a fleet of submarines ready to mine the harbours of US ports? Don't think so. Are they massing troops on the Mexican border, ready to invade from the south? Nuh-uh.

So what is it that poses such a threat? Who can tell me?




posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 09:08 PM
link   
It's not that there a threat to us right this very second.

It's that there government is run by fanatics and Islamic zealots.
And that they could by the middle of the next decade,
have nuclear weapons capabilities.

And they could create a union of all the middle-eastern/Islamic
run countries, which would be a very bad thing.



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 09:13 PM
link   
Iran is a threat to the US because they have huge oil reserves and they are not willing to submit themselves to western (US) control. Moreover, if Iran becomes a nuclear power (ie., in possession of nuclear weapons) they wil achieve a viable political counter to US/western threat/influence in the region.

Think of Iran as a potential "Norma Rae"-type Union organizer in the mid-east.



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 09:16 PM
link   
So there's no "clear and present danger" then?

Good. That means nobody'll be invading, right?

And if their government is run by fanatics and Islamic zealots, how is that a threat to the US?

And if they do create a union of the ME/Islamic countries (which I think rather unlikely myself, but let that pass) how is this, exactly, a threat to the US? Why would it be a Bad Thing? If you're going to make statements like that, please be more specific.



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bhadhidar
Iran is a threat to the US because they have huge oil reserves and they are not willing to submit themselves to western (US) control.


Why is this a bad thing? And does it justify invasion or a bombing campaign, or even sanctions?


Moreover, if Iran becomes a nuclear power (ie., in possession of nuclear weapons) they wil achieve a viable political counter to US/western threat/influence in the region.


So isn't that a good thing for them? Why does it necessarily mean it's a bad thing for us? (That's the rest of the world, not "US" us.)



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 09:57 PM
link   
I would be interested to hear what you would consider to be a threat? Maybe if we knew what you consider a legitimate threat is we could better answer your question.

[edit on 25-8-2006 by Forlon]



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 10:06 PM
link   
I'm interested in clear, immediate, and specific threats, not vague fearmongering. Does that help? Also, I think it not unreasonable that economic reasons are not sufficient for an invasion.

I want to try and get to any real facts behind the hype. It's not as if anyone here has so far produced anything concrete or worthwhile - it's all just vague projections that seem not to stand up to any critical thought.



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by rich23
So there's no "clear and present danger" then?

Good. That means nobody'll be invading, right?

And if their government is run by fanatics and Islamic zealots, how is that a threat to the US?

And if they do create a union of the ME/Islamic countries (which I think rather unlikely myself, but let that pass) how is this, exactly, a threat to the US? Why would it be a Bad Thing? If you're going to make statements like that, please be more specific.


Sorry, I was rushing making my post, wanted to go to the store before it closed.

Because the Islamic zealots want there equivalent of Armageddon.
And a majority of their government want to destroy America and the west.

Why would a union be a bad thing, because Iranw ould be the leader, and their leadership is full of psychos who want to bring about the rising of the 8 Imams, and thusly there religions version of Armageddon, and there willing to kill millions to do it.


Also, I thought I'd just add.
I don't think the Iranian people as a whole are dangerous,
but there government/theocracy is.
Oh, and sanctions are'nt a good idea, unless you want the
people to hate us and side with there government.

[edit on 8/25/2006 by iori_komei]



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 10:08 PM
link   
When did it change that the United States military and army stopped defending the US? Instead, they are sent all over the place, throughout the years (starting around Vietnam time), to countries that pose no threat to the American people. The army is for defense of our people. That is all.



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 10:21 PM
link   
Have you ever seen the destruction caused by a nuclear blast? It is in Iran's mission statement to wipe Israel off the map. Why would anyone allow a regime like this to hold the bomb?

If Iran used the bomb we, the United States, would have to go into the middle east and secure our interests in that region. At that point I think you would see the full furry of the United States military machine.



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 10:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by iori_komei

Sorry, I was rushing making my post, wanted to go to the store before it closed.


No worries, hope you got what you needed!



Because the Islamic zealots want there equivalent of Armageddon.
And a majority of their government want to destroy America and the west.



I'm sorry to be picky here, but I'd really like you to back up this assertion with some hard evidence. My concern is that there's a lot of hype - just like before the Iraq invasion (with the non-existent WMDs) - and I'd like some quotes from people within the current Iranian government which support this contention of "their equivalent of Armageddon". I'd like to move from it being your vague impression that this is the case, to some actual source material to support your contention.


Why would a union be a bad thing, because Iranw ould be the leader, and their leadership is full of psychos who want to bring about the rising of the 8 Imams, and thusly there religions version of Armageddon, and there willing to kill millions to do it.


Please support this contention with some helpful and illuminating quotations from the people involved. Thanks.



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 10:43 PM
link   
Well I don't know where I'd get copies of the Iranian presidents speeches.
But what I was saying was just what he says "We will destroy the Israel and the United States and Zionism".

It's stuff I've heard on the news, liberal and conservative alike.


As for the armagedon thing, I'm not sure any of them have ever said it, but I think it's something that you read between the lines with.



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 10:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nihilist Fiend
Have you ever seen the destruction caused by a nuclear blast?


I've only seen the pictures of the devastation caused by US nuclear strikes on two Japanese cities. I doubt you've seen anything else, either.


It is in Iran's mission statement to wipe Israel off the map. Why would anyone allow a regime like this to hold the bomb?


How is this a threat to the United States? And why would the US have to do anything? Israel, as is well-known (but, it seems, easily forgotten) have their own massive nuclear stockpile that dwarfs anything the Iranians could come up with in a hurry - especially since they're only trying to create their own nuclear fuel: weapons-grade material is much harder to manufacture. Given that Israel has with impunity invaded Lebanon, isn't it more plausible that the Iranians want a bomb - even if they are trying to create weapons-grade material, which I doubt - simply to deter Israeli aggression?


If Iran used the bomb we, the United States, would have to go into the middle east and secure our interests in that region. At that point I think you would see the full furry of the United States military machine.


Ah... now we come to the nub of the matter... I was wondering when this phrase "securing our interests" would come up. So it's ok to invade another country, or bomb it back to the stone age, to protect economic interests? It's ok to drop bombs on civilians (which is what would happen) to protect the God-given right of US citizens to drive round in gas-guzzlers?

Or have I got your point wrong?



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by iori_komei
Well I don't know where I'd get copies of the Iranian presidents speeches.
But what I was saying was just what he says "We will destroy the Israel and the United States and Zionism".


See, this is what I mean by vague. It's kind of illuminating to read about the role of an Israeli organisation called MEMRI in all this. They provide rather misleading translations of these speeches.


When properly translated the Iranian president actually calls for the removal of the regimes that are in power in Israel and in the USA as a goal for the future. Nowhere does he demand the elimination or annihilation of Israel. He called for greater governance for Palestine. The word map does not even feature. And the president makes plain that the Holocaust happened, but, he argues western powers have exploited the memory of the Holocaust for their own imperialistic purposes. What the mainstream ran with is complete deception.


So he's calling for regime change... remind you of anyone? You can find the full article and a link to the proper translation here.


It's stuff I've heard on the news, liberal and conservative alike.


That's because they're all using the same translation and not checking it.


As for the armagedon thing, I'm not sure any of them have ever said it, but I think it's something that you read between the lines with.


Hm... You see, there are people in the US who really believe in the whole Armageddon/rapture thing, and they scare me more than a bunch of mullahs. Bush is born-again, and there are plenty of people that support him who could be claimed to have a religious agenda. It's just stuff I've read in the news somewhere, right?

Anyway, to recap, we have no evidence that the Iranians can even produce weapons-grade material, and the evidence in the speeches that you can't find seems rather shaky when translated by neutral sources. I'm still looking for evidence of a clear and present threat against the United States.


[edit on 25-8-2006 by rich23]

[edit on 25-8-2006 by rich23]



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 11:12 PM
link   
Concerning acts of war, which is what you are referring to, any threat to any of the allies of the US is a threat to the US itself.

It doesn't take an ICBM to get a nuke to Isreal from Iran.

Given that, it doesn't take much to see the threat in the current scenario.

Misfit



posted on Aug, 26 2006 @ 12:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by rich23

Originally posted by Bhadhidar
Iran is a threat to the US because they have huge oil reserves and they are not willing to submit themselves to western (US) control.


Why is this a bad thing? And does it justify invasion or a bombing campaign, or even sanctions?


Moreover, if Iran becomes a nuclear power (ie., in possession of nuclear weapons) they wil achieve a viable political counter to US/western threat/influence in the region.


So isn't that a good thing for them? Why does it necessarily mean it's a bad thing for us? (That's the rest of the world, not "US" us.)


I think you misunderstood my response, rich23; I do not believe that Iran is an actual threat to the west/US.

However, the powers that be, the rich and powerful corporations, and the politicians they own, see in Iran a threat to thier power and control over the their status quo.

A change in the status quo might be a good thing for the world; but is will be faught tooth and nail with every asset at their diposal by those currently invested in the world as we suffer it.



posted on Aug, 26 2006 @ 01:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nihilist Fiend
Have you ever seen the destruction caused by a nuclear blast? It is in Iran's mission statement to wipe Israel off the map. Why would anyone allow a regime like this to hold the bomb?

If Iran used the bomb we, the United States, would have to go into the middle east and secure our interests in that region. At that point I think you would see the full furry of the United States military machine.


It probably helps to have a correct translation of the Iranian Presidents statement, rather than relying on the Neocon spin doctoring designed to rachet up supprt for an invasion. Read the attached version interpreted by Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), located in Washington:

www.informationclearinghouse.info...

[edit on 26-8-2006 by SpiritualOne]



posted on Aug, 26 2006 @ 01:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by rich23
I've only seen the pictures of the devastation caused by US nuclear strikes on two Japanese cities. I doubt you've seen anything else, either.


First yes I have seen many other weapons tests, other than the two atomic weapons dropped on Japan.


How is this a threat to the United States? And why would the US have to do anything?


It is a threat to us because a massive war between Israel and Iran would eventually draw the United States into the conflict. The US cannot sit by while that type of battle rages on. When this happens the United State's military forces will be stretched even thinner than they are now, which destabilizes ongoing operations around the world.



Ah... now we come to the nub of the matter... I was wondering when this phrase "securing our interests" would come up. So it's ok to invade another country, or bomb it back to the stone age, to protect economic interests? It's ok to drop bombs on civilians (which is what would happen) to protect the God-given right of US citizens to drive round in gas-guzzlers?

Or have I got your point wrong?


I must say you have missed the point.
I did not say a darn thing about economic resources in my statement. At this point in time Israel is an ally to the United States, thus it is in our interest to protect them. Israel has a strategic location in that region and it would be unwise to give up that advantage.



posted on Aug, 26 2006 @ 01:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpiritualOne

It probably helps to have a correct translation of the Iranian Presidents statement, rather than relying on the Neocon spin doctoring designed to rachet up supprt for an invasion. Read the attached version interpreted by Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), located in Washington:

www.informationclearinghouse.info...

[edit on 26-8-2006 by SpiritualOne]



He states that a long term goal is a world without the United States. How is this not a threat to the US. Also, do you really believe that if given the power there would be a simple election, in which everyone in the state of Israel could vote and elect representation. There would be a regime change and no civilian blood would be spilled?!?

Iran supports groups that call for the destruction of Israel. Now if I said that I support the Nazis, would I not be guilty of supporting their crimes. Iran's actions speak louder than its words.



posted on Aug, 26 2006 @ 01:51 AM
link   
A nuclear exchange involving Iran/Israel/USA seems to be an ever-growing reality, and it may involve the rumoured to-be-staged act of nuclear/WMD terror within US borders that may occur before the end of 2006.

I'll be surprised if something along these lines doesn't happen in the next year.

If this doesn't happen, then I really don't know what is going on in the world.

It's a matter of personal viewing. Conspiracy versus chaos. They bounce off each other into manipulation, right behind the very thin layer in front of your eyes.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join