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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe
Just the ones with oil or a good spot to put a pipeline, apparently..
Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe
Well it's always the US that ends up with the oil, so you tell me. Is it one sided?
Originally posted by Nihilist Fiend
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).
We don't know their intentions, so why should the world trust them with developing a nuclear program on its own terms.
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.
Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe
Well it's always the US that ends up with the oil, so you tell me. Is it one sided?
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".
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.
Originally posted by Nihilist Fiend
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?
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.
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.
You have voted Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for the Way Above Nuclear Secret Award. You have two more votes this month
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...
Originally posted by timski
You have voted Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for the Way Above Nuclear Secret Award. You have two more votes this month
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.
.........................
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]