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: 6
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nihilist Fiend
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.


Really? Are you sure? Because I seem to remember something about an axis of evil long before any mention of a nuclear program.

edit to add: And didn't Saddam give up his WMD programs and still get the snot beat out of him?

[edit on 8/27/2006 by mythatsabigprobe]




posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe

Originally posted by Nihilist Fiend
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.


Really? Are you sure? Because I seem to remember something about an axis of evil long before any mention of a nuclear program.


So I am to believe that the US will invade all nations that it does not see eye to eye with, not matter the current situation?



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 01:55 PM
link   
Just the ones with oil or a good spot to put a pipeline, apparently..



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe
Just the ones with oil or a good spot to put a pipeline, apparently..


Hahaha... your misunderstanding of world affairs is quite funny.

Whenever there is a disagreement on middle east affairs, its always that the US wants the oil. End of story. That a bit one sided isn't it?

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



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 02:01 PM
link   
Well it's always the US that ends up with the oil, so you tell me. Is it one sided?



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe
Well it's always the US that ends up with the oil, so you tell me. Is it one sided?


Not to mention contracts for reconstruction of a country that they previously bombed to smitherine.



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nihilist Fiend
Alright, prove that Iran is working on a peaceful nuclear program.


No. That is not the purpose of this thread. I have asked people to post evidence in this thread that Iran is a clear and imminent threat to the US. Nothing so far... Iran SAYS they're working on a peaceful nuclear programme and they're within their rights to do so. Even if they're not, that is still not grounds for invasion, or, logically, even for assuming that they're going to nuke Washington. There are plenty of states which are antagonistic to the US that have nuckear capability which they have not used. Why should Iran be any different.


You have stated that you feel Iran is working toward a peaceful nuclear program (again I would like to see some evidence for this).


Well... in all this fuss, people seem to have forgotten that for two years, Iran did, quite voluntarily, suspend enrichment processes. The US seems to have put pressure on the IAEA board to keep the pressure on Iran as some board members have been "unable to satisfy themselves" that Iran's programme is exclusively peaceful. Iran then lost patience with the politicking and shenanigans surrounding the IAEA board and decided to go ahead with their peaceful programme anyway. Whether they have a covert military programme going on is open to debate, of course, but so far there is little or no evidence to suggest this is the case.

The fact that Iran did, for two years, suspend enrichment, suggests to me that they were acting in good faith, and this in the face of continuing psychological warfare from the US and Israel, constantly alleging that, for examples, Jews in Iran would have to wear stars of David. (There's a thread somewhere on ATS about this: the story was effectively debunked pretty quickly.)

They're now being pretty open about the fact that they've resumed enrichment, but are, as I understand it, not allowing inspectors access because the inspection process can legitimately be viewed as compromised in the wake of all that happened in Iraq.


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


But why should they be subjected to invasion simply because we don't know their intentions? And why should we trust the US to do this when they clearly want to just get their hands on the oil (again)?


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.


OK. So we have no actual evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapons programme; and all you have to demonstrate the "threat" is a list of the things the Iranians did as a consequence of the US' interference in their internal affairs and an unstubstantiated allegation of the nature of their nuclear programme.

This kind of evidence would not convince a jury to send a man to prison, much less launch an attack on, or invasion of, a sovereign country which would inevitably cost civilian lives by the tens, if not hundreds, of thousands.



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe
Well it's always the US that ends up with the oil, so you tell me. Is it one sided?


It was the UN which gave the OK for Bush to take over all the Iraqi assets which included the oil money, but I never hear anyone saying that the UN allowed the US to supposedly "take the oil".



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 02:33 PM
link   
rich23...

I did not call for an invasion or attack on Iran. Once again you put words in my mouth.

Also just because the process isn't moving fast enough for you, doesn't mean you fly in the face of the world community. To progress in this fashion is only pushing the region closer to armed conflict. It is in fact Iran that is creating this issue, not the US and especially not Israel.

And the point about the US meddling in the Iranian affairs, only strengthens the point to air on the side of caution. If these people have a beef with us, and are known to spout death to America, then I ask you again how a non-monitored nuclear program is not a threat to the US?

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



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nihilist Fiend
It was the UN which gave the OK for Bush to take over all the Iraqi assets which included the oil money, but I never hear anyone saying that the UN allowed the US to supposedly "take the oil".


Here is a report by the charity Christian Aid which describes how money in the oil-for-food programme - amounting to at least $4bn - simply disappeared. The money was administered by the Coalition Provisional Authority, which was run by the US, and has never been accounted for.

That's $4bn dollars, poof, up in smoke. And that's just the start. It makes all that stuff about "corruption surrounding Kofi Annan" look like pretty small beer, frankly.

Can you supply a link that demonstrates that the UN allowed the US to take the oil? Last I heard, the idea that the relevant UN resolutions provided a sound legal basis for the invasion - let alone disbursing the assets of the invaded country - was looking pretty threadbare.



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by rich23


That's $4bn dollars, poof, up in smoke. And that's just the start. It makes all that stuff about "corruption surrounding Kofi Annan" look like pretty small beer, frankly.


No, no you misunderstand. If it was so well known that Bush would ransack post war Iraq, why would the UN OK the transfer of power over the Iraqi funds to him. I'm not arguing that the money is gone.

Staying on track, please reply to my last post, seeing as this thread is not about Bush and the oil money. Iran people, stay on track.

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

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



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

Originally posted by Nihilist Fiend
I did not call for an invasion or attack on Iran. Once again you put words in my mouth.


Well, you seem to think that Iran poses a threat. That's grounds for invasion, is it not? The whole point of this thread, as I have stated many times, is to determine whether there is any evidence to support the idea that Iraq is a threat to the US which would justify military action. You seem to be making that case. I'm sorry if I'm putting words in your mouth but this is the first time that you seem not to be keen on the idea of invasion or attack.


Also just because the process isn't moving fast enough for you, doesn't mean you fly in the face of the world community. To progress in this fashion is only pushing the region closer to armed conflict. It is in fact Iran that is creating this issue, not the US and especially not Israel.


Ah, that wonderful mythical beast, the "world community". This phrase generally means "the US and whoever they can strong-arm or suborn into standing with them on the issue at hand".

You see, there's a pattern that's being repeated here. Precisely the same kind of tactics were used against Saddam, and even Afghanistan. When the target regime complies with your demands, raise the bar. Personally I'm not surprised that the Iranians got sick of it. Goodnes knows their country has suffered at the hands of the US.


And the point about the US meddling in the Iranian affairs, only strengthens the point to air on the side of caution. If these people have a beef with us, and are known to spout death to America, then I ask you again how a non-monitored nuclear program is not a threat to the US?


Interesting use of "erring on the side of caution". For some people, that might mean, "well, we made a real mess of it last time so we'll leave them alone, maybe even try to patch things up a bit". For others, it means, "we really have to get our foot on their neck this time and not let them up."

And I'll reply again: they're not a threat to the US because they're not mad or suicidal. I have already made this point. They don't even have any nukes yet, they are unlikely ever to have enough to pose a serious threat to a country that really could "wipe them off the map" without breaking a sweat.

The media are doing their work. They are persuading you that Iran - in the face of all logic and evidence - deserves to be invaded. And you're just falling for it just like most of your countrymen did over Iraq. I mean, that was only three years ago, you're still picking up a very painful and bloody tab for that mistake and now you're ready to repeat it?

And I'm not quite clear. You think that Iran is a threat, but it's not worth going to war over. Does that adequately express your position?

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



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nihilist Fiend
No, no you misunderstand. If it was so well known that Bush would ransack post war Iraq, why would the UN OK the transfer of power over the Iraqi funds to him. I'm not arguing that the money is gone.


Again, I'd like some sort of evidence to show that the UN OK'd anything of the sort, because I don't remember it happening.


Staying on track, please reply to my last post, seeing as this thread is not about Bush and the oil money. Iran people, stay on track.


Hmmm... testy again. I am replying to your posts in order as they appear. As for staying on track, I think that one of the threads in this discussion is whether it is possible to regard the US as the good guys. My link to the Christian Aid report supports the contention that it is not possible to do that.

Oh, and who are "Iran people"?
Just kidding, you don't have to reply.

[edit on 27-8-2006 by rich23]



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 03:21 PM
link   

You have voted Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for the Way Above Nuclear Secret Award. You have two more votes this month





posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 03:25 PM
link   
To begin you state that Iran is not a threat merely because they are not crazy. Perfectly sane people have attacked nations in the past, so I don't see this as answer. Iran could give the nuclear device to a terrorist group. This group could bomb a target, thus Iran attacks a target through a third party.

I have never raised the point of attacking Iran. First I would get support from the, here it comes, world community. Then I would offer incentives to Iran to allow inspections to occur. If they say, no, then I would move towards sanctions and a general economic embargo. And if down the road the situation needs to be resolved by military action, so be it. This could range from small strategic bombing and leaving the regime in power, to a massive invasion force. I will not, at this point, tie myself down to a strategy.

And it should probably have read like this

Iran, people stay on track!


timski: My god I haven't laughed so hard in my life!



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by rich23

Again, I'd like some sort of evidence to show that the UN OK'd anything of the sort, because I don't remember it happening.

[edit on 27-8-2006 by rich23]



After the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the United States took control of all of the Iraqi government’s bank accounts, including the income from oil sales. The United Nations approved the financial takeover, and President Bush vowed to spend Iraq’s money wisely. But now critics are raising serious questions about how well the United States handled billions of dollars in Iraqi oil funds.
www.msnbc.msn.com...


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



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by timski

You have voted Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for the Way Above Nuclear Secret Award. You have two more votes this month




Hahaha genius!



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 04:55 PM
link   
Iran, more specifically Ahmedinejad, is a big threat to western money men, so they want to take him out. He doesnt submit to US/Israeli bullying, and those zionists cant put up with that. He also threatens the US dollar, because it is rapidly decreasing in value, and Iran wants to switch its oil sale money (which is usually in US dollars) over to the Euro. Big problem for the bankers who own this country, and want to enslave the world in their phony capitalist/fascist system.

Iran, and alot of the other arab nations, do not want a New World Order, so they are fighting back. They are the enemy and a threat of the people who own our country, not to the American people. The government isnnt lying when they say that. Its just they throw it in your face and spin it to make it look like they are evil.

The Illuminati have a disinformation technique, its one of their "golden rules" in putting out propoganda, that rule is this: always accuse your advesary of whatever is true about yourself, followed by, always be the first to make the accusation. Literally within ours of 9/11, I heard the talking heads on the media say "we got a message from the FBI, they say its Bin Laden".....tactic of the DISinformant.

The Illuminati want a New World Order, the Illuminati want to use terror to achieve it, the Illuminati want armeggedon if they cant achieve it, the Illuminati consider the Arab world a threat and want to destroy their society......so how do they make the people go along with it? Say thats EXACTLY what THEY want!!! How see thru is that??

Iran isnt a threat to American people. Its a threat to the New World Order.

[edit on 27-8-2006 by AscendedMaster]



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by rich23

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.
.........................


The U.S. has caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis?.... Well, well, well...caught in a lie.... The U.S. did not cause the death of "hundreds of thousands of Iraqis".... That we know of, and that can be corraborated, the death toll in Iraq since the war started is between 40,833 and 45,399..."not hundreds of thousands".... and many of those were not killed by the coalition as some people, including yourself, would like the world to believe...

www.iraqbodycount.net...

If you look at the reports of the causes of death from Iraqi hospitals in the following link, you will see that a lot of Iraqi people died in suicide attacks, planted bombs, and insurgent attacks on the population. Unfortunately the coalition has killed civilians too, some because insurgents use civilians as shields, some by mistake as happens in many wars....

www.iraqbodycount.net...

You also exagerate and apparently would like for people to believe that Saddam was a saint and he didn't have wmd programs....yet why would he need empty chemical warheads? Why would he still need documents on how to start and keep a wmd program, and why so many defectors from Saddam's regime and other defectors from Russia say that Saddam did have a wmd program and that the Russians helped them get rid of the stockpiles of wmd.....

But of course you and your friends from the left would rather claim "oh they are not existant"...despite the tons of evidence which points to the contrary...

It is true that we haven't found the stockpiles of wmd but that doesn't mean they didn't have them, because the evidence shows otherwise....

So nice for you to try to make another thread just to bash and blame the U.S. government.... Apparently you have no problems with lying trying to bring up an agenda ....



[edit on 27-8-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nihilist Fiend

After the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the United States took control of all of the Iraqi government’s bank accounts, including the income from oil sales.


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


Thank you. That has enabled me to find the Wikipedia article on UNSCR 1483, which is what the article is referring to.

You asked why the UN transferred the funds if they knew the US would loot them: I would say that this was effectively rubber-stamping something that was a de facto reality, and that the financial controls they attempted to impose were ignored by the CPA.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join