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: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 06:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nihilist Fiend
This entire debate can come down to this. Nuclear weapons are bad. We need to stop the spread of nuclear weapons. I don't care what the government is, we need to stop the spread of nuclear weapons. Simple.


No. It's not that simple. When you're looking at attacking another country, and causing the deaths of civilians, it's certainly not that simple. As things stand, the US has caused hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths in Iraq and polluted that country with massive amounts of depleted uranium - which is a highly toxic and rather radioactive substance that causes birth defects wherever it's used - because it alleged that Saddam had a non-existent arsenal of WMDs.

Now the same tricks are being used to put Iran in the crosshairs and there seems to be no shortage of people willing to fall for it again. Once again, the evidence is flimsy: I'm asking for some real evidence and not one poster has yet given me anything other than propaganda to deal with, or selective application of universal principles that simply expose the extent to which Iran is being singled out for attention as opposed to countries that deserve it more but DON'T HAVE OIL and aren't antagonistic to Israel.

Plus, behind it all is the unspoken assumption that the US has some sort of moral high ground that makes it suitable to be the world's policeman. An even-handed assessment of the history of US intervention world wide casts this idea into serious doubt.

[edit on 27-8-2006 by rich23]




posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 06:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nihilist Fiend
You apparently have started from the answer you want and worked backwards. You asked me why the US would want this strategic location, and I have answered this. If this is not good enough for you then I would bother to try to explain it to you further.

Might I add that you seem to have a very anti-American slant. Is this intentional?


I am distinguishing between the idea of a strategy - which is a long-term plan to accomplish specific goals - and the identification of those specific goals that are behind the strategy. You decline to identify those goals, perhaps because they make you uncomfortable. Do you really believe that the US spends billions on providing bases around the world for its military for no other reason than to provide humanitarian aid? This is what you seem to want us to believe.

Ah, yes, of course... I'm just "anti-American". There you go... all rational argument can now cease, because you have now identified what the "real" problem is... I just hate America (for its freedoms, naturally; although it seems to me those freedoms are being rapidly eroded - you can't feed the homeless, you can't boycott Israeli goods, and you can't pick up the 'phone without Big Brother eavesdropping, to take just three recent examples all of which have threads dedicated to them on other parts of this forum) and so we can afford to ignore any actual arguments I might have.

As a matter of fact, there is much I love about America. I have spent quite a bit of time there and have many American friends. But I think it's a rather sick country at the moment and I think it has a rather delusional self-image which a serious review of the history of its own foreign policy would correct, although this would necessarily involve ditching the image of the US as the good guys. I'm not actually anti-American, but I do recognise that for the last sixty years it has acted to the detriment of most of the countries with which it has had dealings. In fact, I'm no more anti-American than, for example, Harry Shearer, the Dixie Chicks, or Mark Twain - whose writings on American Imperialism and the US invasion of the Philippines resonate rather profoundly in today's climate.

There is also the fact that the people involved in PNAC - who currently run the US - are somewhat drunk on the idea that the US is now the sole superpower, and this hubris is causing them to commit errors that make previous administrations look like paragons of virtue: NOT an easy task, I have to say.

And I do rather resent the UK being dragged into the US foreign policy misadventures, and loathe Blair's suck-up attitude to Bush. At least Wilson had the sense to keep us out of Vietnam.

[edit on 27-8-2006 by rich23]



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 06:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by rich23

Originally posted by Nihilist Fiend
This entire debate can come down to this. Nuclear weapons are bad. We need to stop the spread of nuclear weapons. I don't care what the government is, we need to stop the spread of nuclear weapons. Simple.


No. It's not that simple. When you're looking at attacking another country, and causing the deaths of civilians, it's certainly not that simple. As things stand, the US has caused hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths in Iraq and polluted that country with massive amounts of depleted uranium - which is a highly toxic and rather radioactive substance that causes birth defects wherever it's used - because it alleged that Saddam had a non-existent arsenal of WMDs.

Now the same tricks are being used to put Iran in the crosshairs and there seems to be no shortage of people willing to fall for it again. Once again, the evidence is flimsy: I'm asking for some real evidence and not one poster has yet given me anything other than propaganda to deal with, or selective application of universal principles that simply expose the extent to which Iran is being singled out for attention as opposed to countries that deserve it more but DON'T HAVE OIL and aren't threats to Israel.

Plus, behind it all is the unspoken assumption that the US has some sort of moral high ground that makes it suitable to be the world's policeman. An even-handed assessment of the history of US intervention world wide casts this idea into serious doubt.

Very well said

I think the currant us government is very hypocritical when it comes to nukes, as yet iran poses no threat I belive that we should let them go ahead with it but watch very very carefully.

i also agree with a members comments that a country in that area having nuclear weapons if some sort of union was formed between middle-eastern governments is a very bad thing but as of yet this has not happened.

I see terrorisum and fundamentalisum turning if it has not already done so into a religous war.

we have two opposing sides here christians and muslims etc

it seems to me that government and media has confused the issue by making it seem that muslims are terrorists this is very much not the case lets get our facts here terrorisum that we hear about so much is a distorted and twisted ideal of this faith the two are very seporate.

Now GW Bush is clearly a christian and so is a lot of the population of america now when he starts bringing god into his great speaches talking about muslims in the way that he does i can only see a religious war coming about.

what does a relgeous war have to do with this post, probably not a great deal, but if a middle eastern country had nukes and a war did kick off it would be world war three



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 06:27 AM
link   
Iran and just about any other Middle Eastern regimes are the product of 80 years of backstabbing and sheer foolishness. The backstabing began after the first world war when England and France turn there backs on promises made during World War one. Post World War two political rather then tribal boundries where created this is where the sheer foolishness comes in to play.

Since then the USA has supported and then had deal with there former allies.
Iran is a threate to the region due to the islamic wackos who run the countrie and want nuclear weapons.
The real question is how many of the threate did the USA create and how much is due to racidal Islam ?



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 08:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by rich23

I am distinguishing between the idea of a strategy - which is a long-term plan to accomplish specific goals - and the identification of those specific goals that are behind the strategy...

Ah, yes, of course... I'm just "anti-American". There you go... all rational argument can now cease, because you have now identified what the "real" problem is... I just hate America (for its freedoms, naturally; although it seems to me those freedoms are being rapidly eroded - you can't feed the homeless, you can't boycott Israeli goods, and you can't pick up the 'phone without Big Brother eavesdropping, to take just three recent examples all of which have threads dedicated to them on other parts of this forum) and so we can afford to ignore any actual arguments I might have.
[edit on 27-8-2006 by rich23]


Alright lets get one thing straight. You nor I am in charge of foreign affairs, so for you to assume that you have a complete understanding of all the past, current, and future operations conducted at those bases is laughable! Are you an isolationist?

To comment on Iran. Iran has shown open support for terrorist organizations. This is one strike against their ability to make "sound judgments". Now you can spout off that the US has made a grave mistake in invading Iraq (I agree with you on this point), but this is no excuse to let Iran negotiate its nuclear development. Two wrongs don't make a right you know. That would be dangerously irresponsible. The actions in Iraq are irrelevant when it comes to the issue of Iran and the bomb. You can say that Iran is trying to defend itself, but the only reason that any action has been called for against Iran is because of their irresponsible nuclear development.

and rich23...

I said that you had an anti-American slant. I say this because you are putting un-due blame on America for the actions of the current Iranian regime. You have in return flown off the handle and blown my statement out of proportion. I NEVER STATED THAT YOU HATED AMERICA SO DON'T PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH!!!


[edit on 27-8-2006 by Nihilist Fiend]



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 08:53 AM
link   
I would like to challenge all those who say that Iran is not a threat, to post conclusive proof that Iran has no intention of developing nuclear weapons and/or using them against any target.

There is more to this so please respond!

[edit on 27-8-2006 by Nihilist Fiend]



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nihilist Fiend
Alright lets get one thing straight. You nor I am in charge of foreign affairs, so for you to assume that you have a complete understanding of all the past, current, and future operations conducted at those bases is laughable! Are you an isolationist?


You haven't answered the question, or, apparently, understood the distinction between "having a strategy" and "the purpose or goal of a strategy". ALL I am saying is that to suggest that US bases are scattered around the world at great expense for a purpose, and that that purpose is not to offer humanitarian aid. I'm asking you to suggest what that purpose might be because all you offer on the subject is vagueness and evasion. What ARE those bases for, please, if not to project US military might to prevent nations from using their own natural resources as they see fit?

Am I an isolationist? I'm someone who recognises that the US has not, for the past fifty years at least (and with the exception of WWII, for some considerable time before that) used its military might against another country for purposes of self-defence.


...the US has made a grave mistake in invading Iraq (I agree with you on this point), but this is no excuse to let Iran negotiate its nuclear development. Two wrongs don't make a right you know.


Iran has every right to the peaceful use of nuclear energy, which is, apparently, at the moment, all it's capable of. My concern is that one wrong (the invasion of Iraq) should not be compounded by another (the invasion of, or attack upon, Iran) when lessons about the disingenuousness of the US authorities in this matter should have been learned. How can you say that


The actions in Iraq are irrelevant when it comes to the issue of Iran and the bomb


when we see the same arguments being advanced in support of an attack: "Iraq supports terrorism"; "Iraq has WMD". Change just one letter, from 'q' to 'n', and you have the same arguments put forth. And again, the evidence that Iran actually has any kind of nuclear weapon is flaiwed and the rhetoric by which they are condemned is the result of wiful mistranslation by an Israeli think-tank.


You can say that Iran is trying to defend itself, but the only reason that any action has been called for against Iran is because of their irresponsible nuclear development.


Is there any actual hard evidence from a reputable source to back this up?


I said that you had an anti-American slant. I say this because you are putting un-due blame on America for the actions of the current Iranian regime. You have in return flown off the handle and blown my statement out of proportion. I NEVER STATED THAT YOU HATED AMERICA SO DON'T PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH!!!


My concern is that, by accusing me of anti-Americanism, you're not addressing the arguments I put forth. You might say that I'm putting undue blame on the US: I disagree. I think that the state of Iran today would be entirely different had its democracy been allowed to continue without interference. But the US must have its oil, and the multinationals must be allowed to plunder the resources of defenceless countries... you've already admitted that the US "faltered" - which is a rather equivocal word to describe what actually happened, frankly, and evinces a less than square approach to the problems posed by US foreign policy in the region. Let's just have a very quick recap of Iranian/US relations:


  • the US deposes democratically-elected President Mossadegh at the behest of the Multinationals
  • they impose a monarchy backed by a vicious secret police which terrorises the population for two decades
  • they help Iran's chief rival in the region, Saddam's Iraq, to build its military
  • they sell arms to both sides of the Iran/Iraq war (with the active assistance of Israel, funnily enough)
  • they invade Iraq and make a mess of the place
  • they send clear diplomatic messages saying "you're next".


I would say that this is a pretty consistent foreign policy and it's one that is guaranteed to antagonise Iran and its people.



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nihilist Fiend
I would like to challenge all those who say that Iran is not a threat, to post conclusive proof that Iran has no intention of developing nuclear weapons and/or using them against any target.


I would like to point out that proving a negative is not logically possible.

So far you have not risen to the challenge of posting evidence to show that Iran is a threat, which is the purpose of this thread: you now step back and try to shift the ground onto proving that they aren't. This is disingenuous.

I would like to challenge anyone to prove that Ireland has no nuclear weapons. If I had sufficient resources at my disposal, I'm sure I could build Ireland up as a nuclear threat.

I would also like to repeat my original point: I'd really like someone to demonstrate, conclusively, that Iraq is a threat to the US. That's what this thread is about.

I have yet to see any realistic data to support this thesis.



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 11:30 AM
link   
I think the aswer to this thread is simple. Iran is a disababling force in the region. A region that supplies our key allies with crude oil crucial to keep their econimies up and running. If oil wasn't important Iran wouldn't be either.
The one thing that would definitly cause a US invasion, and always would, is if the Iranian oil taps closed or if another nation threatened that. The rest is mis-direction and a diversion.
If any naytion is at risk at the present I would turn my attention to Syria... don't watch the bouncing ball, keep your eyes on the magician.

Edit for spelling

[edit on 27-8-2006 by Ikema]



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by rich23

Originally posted by Nihilist Fiend
I would like to challenge all those who say that Iran is not a threat, to post conclusive proof that Iran has no intention of developing nuclear weapons and/or using them against any target.


I would like to point out that proving a negative is not logically possible.

So far you have not risen to the challenge of posting evidence to show that Iran is a threat, which is the purpose of this thread: you now step back and try to shift the ground onto proving that they aren't. This is disingenuous.


Alright, prove that Iran is working on a peaceful nuclear program.

You have stated that you feel Iran is working toward a peaceful nuclear program (again I would like to see some evidence for this). I feel that Iran is working toward a nuclear weapon ( evidence being the dismissal of UN inspectors) . In this case, for arguments sake, it is impossible to determine what Iran's intentions are.

We don't know their intentions, so why should the world trust them with developing a nuclear program on its own terms.

Cut the whole Iran is just trying to defend itself gag, the only reason the US might invade is if Iran doesn't cut out its irresponsible nuclear program.

I have not posted "evidence" because I am not in the high ranks of our government, and do not receive the daily intel reports that they do. I can only explain with logic why a nation that overran our embassy, repeatedly calls us the great Satan, supports terrorist groups, hates us for installing the Shah, and is now working on a nuclear program is a threat.



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 12:43 PM
link   
You're asking him to prove a negative essentally, that's kind of an impossible task.

Prove to me that Iran is not building a nuclear weapons program.
Prove to me that the world is not overrun by invisible underpants gnomes.

See?

Personally I think this whole thing with Iran could be settled with a simple compromise: allow them to enrich, and demand the enrichment process be subject to IAEA inspection. That might be a compromise they can't refuse, it would undercut any weapons program but at the same time not interfere with any peaceful energy program - denying Iran their chief propaganda card.

IMHO Iran is seeking the technical capability to produce weapons, but has not embarked on any weapons production program yet. Despite all the speculation, noone has yet produced any positive evidence that Iran has a weapons program. Only lack of evidence: we can't prove that Iran doesn't have a weapons program.

But we can't prove there are no underpants gnomes either.





[edit on 8/27/06 by xmotex]



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by rich23
Let's just have a very quick recap of Iranian/US relations:


  • the US deposes democratically-elected President Mossadegh at the behest of the Multinationals
  • they impose a monarchy backed by a vicious secret police which terrorises the population for two decades
  • they help Iran's chief rival in the region, Saddam's Iraq, to build its military
  • they sell arms to both sides of the Iran/Iraq war (with the active assistance of Israel, funnily enough)
  • they invade Iraq and make a mess of the place
  • they send clear diplomatic messages saying "you're next".


So because of this Iran has the right to develop a nuclear program on its own terms?



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 12:53 PM
link   
Mirror, mirror on the wall ...


Originally posted by Nihilist Fiend
I have not posted "evidence" because I am not in the high ranks of our government, and do not receive the daily intel reports that they do. I can only explain with logic why a nation that overran our embassy, repeatedly calls us the great Satan, supports terrorist groups, hates us for installing the Shah, and is now working on a nuclear program is a threat.


On the other hand we have a nation who invaded, destroyed and occupied countries, killed, kidnaped, imprisoned and tortured the population, installed puppet governments, repeatedlly calls countries that they are in the "Axis of Evil" or "Islamofascist", have more than 100k troops and half of the Navy at their doorstep and have the biggest nuclear arsenal in the world. And you call Iran a threat for what they MIGHT do in the future.

What does your "logic" tell you now?

Now, I agree that we do not have enough information to prove why Iran is or is not a threat to US. But one thing is clear. Attack on nuclear instalations especialy nuclear power plants is extremelly dangerous thing. When you do something like that you contaminate the whole region for a long period of time. We would have large quantities of radioactive graphite dust that wind would spread all around ME, Israel, parts of Europe, and there is a possibility It would reach continental US. I'm affraid that any offensive actions agains this istallations woud create more problems than solutions.

[edit on 27-8-2006 by yanchek]



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
You're asking him to prove a negative essentally, that's kind of an impossible task.

Prove to me that Iran is not building a nuclear weapons program.
Prove to me that the world is not overrun by invisible underpants gnomes.

See?

Personally I think this whole thing with Iran could be settled with a simple compromise: allow them to enrich, and demand the enrichment process be subject to IAEA inspection. That might be a compromise they can't refuse, it would undercut any weapons program but at the same time not interfere with any peaceful energy program - denying Iran their chief propaganda card.

IMHO Iran is seeking the technical capability to produce weapons, but has not embarked on any weapons production program yet. Despite all the speculation, noone has yet produced any positive evidence that Iran has a weapons program. Only lack of evidence: we can't prove that Iran doesn't have a weapons program.

But we can't prove there are no underpants gnomes either.





[edit on 8/27/06 by xmotex]


I agree with you completely. The only reason that we have to try and predict Iran's intentions is because they refuse to give the inspectors full access to all sites. This is one of the reasons that point to Iran building a weapon. If all the facilities were monitored, I could see that compromise working.



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by yanchek
Mirror, mirror on the wall ...

On the other hand we have a nation who invaded, destroyed and occupied countries, killed, kidnaped, imprisoned and tortured the population, installed puppet governments, repeatedlly calls countries that they are in the "Axis of Evil" or "Islamofascist", have more than 100k troops and half of the Navy at their doorstep and have the biggest nuclear arsenal in the world. And you call Iran a threat for what they MIGHT do in the future.

What does your "logic" tell you now?
[edit on 27-8-2006 by yanchek]


I believe that you deal with a problem with the appropriate solution.

Oppressive US government? Its called an election!

Iran going nuts for nukes? Its called International inspection!

Thanks for coming out!



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nihilist Fiend
I agree with you completely. The only reason that we have to try and predict Iran's intentions is because they refuse to give the inspectors full access to all sites. This is one of the reasons that point to Iran building a weapon. If all the facilities were monitored, I could see that compromise working.
Thats because the US has been planting spies in the inspection team, the US doesnt even let anyone inspect their nuclear facilities IIRC.

Again, its one rule for them and one for everyone else.



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flyer

Originally posted by Nihilist Fiend
I agree with you completely. The only reason that we have to try and predict Iran's intentions is because they refuse to give the inspectors full access to all sites. This is one of the reasons that point to Iran building a weapon. If all the facilities were monitored, I could see that compromise working.
Thats because the US has been planting spies in the inspection team, the US doesnt even let anyone inspect their nuclear facilities IIRC.

Again, its one rule for them and one for everyone else.


And what would th IIRC be looking for? The inspections for Iran would be to make sure that they are not developing nuclear weapons. The US has nuclear weapons. So what is the connection?

And please give me a resource on the inspections team spies, I hadn't heard of that. thanks.

[edit on 27-8-2006 by Nihilist Fiend]

[edit on 27-8-2006 by Nihilist Fiend]



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 01:37 PM
link   
This whole Iran thing will be a moot point after Feb 3 2007.



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by hereandnow
This whole Iran thing will be a moot point after Feb 3 2007.


Why?



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nihilist Fiend
So because of this Iran has the right to develop a nuclear program on its own terms?


The simple answer would be yes. Every nation has the right (and the responsibility to it's citizens) to defend itself. There's a clear threat to Iran from the US and it's allies, hence a valid reason to prepare a defense.




top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join