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: 8
0
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 06:00 AM
link   
Rich, i've really enjoyed reading your work here, keep it up!

I believe that Iran is a threat to the USA not because of any possible threat to the US mainland, but as a direct consequence of the Iraq war of 2003.

Before the war Iraq provided a counterbalance to Iran, forcing the Iranians to remain focused on domestic concerns and ensureing that a new war doesn't spring up. However with Saddam removed the Iranians recieved a natural ally in the form of the Shia muslims who make up around 60% of the population, the same grouping dominant in Iran.

In effect this gives Iran massive influence and power in what is supposed to be an American friendly nation. This in turn means that Iran has the potential to dominate the Middle East, control oil supplies and generally make Western life damn expensive. Therefore before the US can withdraw from Iran they have to neuter it to ensure that all the 'good work' done in Iraq doesnt go to waste.




posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 06:02 AM
link   
Gazrok - I agree with much of your last post, although I think saying


Originally posted by Gazrok
You can't force democracy on people who don't want it


is rather sweeping. Iraqis are, actually, not that different from anyone else, although some of the more extreme Shia sects (like the one that encourages men to go out in the streets and cut themselves up with swords once a year, ewwwww) can be a bit tiresome. One useful thing that Saddam did (and there were one or two: while undoubtedly a nasty piece of work, he wasn't stupid and before the US turned against him, he did use quite a lot of the oil wealth on health and literacy programmes that benefited the average Iraqi far more than citizens in neighbouring countries with similar oil revenues) was to keep a lid on the religious extremists.

Had there been a way of quietly replacing Saddam with a democracy, I suspect that it might have been accomplished, although the upwelling of religious fervour we've seen does make this look a little shaky, I'll admit. If it were possible to ensure some sort of separation between church and state - not easy with Islam the dominant religion - some sort of democracy might have been viable. The problem is, you would have been left with a country that was still not subservient to US economic interests - and why should they not trade their oil in the currency that would benefit them most? Or set their own conditions for the extraction of oil, and use the profits to benefit their own people?

To make that statment in the context of a discussion about Iran ignores the fact that the country had a pefectly viable democracy until the US came along and replaced it with a particularly vicious police state. It's a little insensitive, I think. A good argument might be made that the years of repression enabled the mullahs to get a good grip on the minds of the populace.

I also disagree that a decapitation move on Israel's part is the most likely. That would almost certainly prompt too high a level of retaliation, IMO. I think attempted strikes on nuclear sites the most likely response, no matter that even if they were successful, it would cause appalling radiation leaks.

And I'm fully aware of the whole Euro business - and that reminds me, we haven't heard much about the Iranian oil bourse lately, have we? I haven't looked at that for a while, but wasn't it supposed to be up and running a while ago?


How hard would it have been to plant stuff, jeez!!!


I admit, that's what I thought they'd do. Instead, they've opted to brazen it out. Of course, had they gone down that route, it might have been hard to convince UN weapons inspectors... I mean, that Niger yellowcake forgery didn't last long, did it?



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 06:18 AM
link   
Uncle Joe - thanks for your kind words. We are kindred spirits indeed: liver terrifies me.

And you're absolutely right about the ways in which Iran "poses a threat" to the US, but it makes me realise that there are different kinds and levels of threat, so I'd like to clarify...

For all posters on this thread:

I'd like people to be posting evidence that shows that Iran poses a genuine, not imaginary, military threat to the US that justifies military action against them.


The purpose of this is to put the propaganda campaign that I think is being waged against Iran into perspective.

Of course, all posts that indicate the real nature of the threat that Iran poses to the US are welcome too, but I would classify these points as "inconveniences" rather than genuine threats.



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 06:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by rich23

Originally posted by Muaddib
Humm...could you post a link where the U.S. government has recently said they are considering a "nuclear first strike" on another country?.....

i think you are confusing the U.S. govenrment with what Chirac said earlier this year....


Oh, why waste an opportunity to bash the French? I bet you now call 'em "freedom fries" even if hardly anyone else does.

But of course I was thinking of this:


Published on Saturday, March 19, 2005 by the Los Angeles Times
Policy OKs First Strike to Protect US
Pentagon strategic plan codifies unilateral, preemptive attacks. The doctrine marks a shift from coalitions such as NATO, analysts say
by John Hendren


WASHINGTON - Two years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the Pentagon has formally included in key strategic plans provisions for launching preemptive strikes against nations thought to pose a threat to the United States.


Humm commondreams....not exactly a "pro-eminent website"....and I don't see anything in there that mentions nuclear pre-emtive strikes...

So, do you have any evidence that there is a "pre-emtive nuclear strike" policy in the U.S.?



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 06:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by rich23
............... and it only counts violent death. The results of disruption to clean water supplies and food supplies is not taken into account. I'd go with the estimate by the UK medical establishment and, considering that's two years old, and that security in Iraq is still non-existent for the civilian population, at least doubling that figure is not unreasonable.
...............


I see, so perhaps the people who die of old age in Iraq should be accounted too no? and i guess you want to include the people killed by the insurgents/terrorists, oh wait, you already did and exagerated the figures even more for your own agenda.... hummm....



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 07:01 AM
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?


We always hear these claims yet where is the oil?... i haven't seen all or any of the oil coming from Iraq... it must not exist I would say....



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 07:34 AM
link   


If you can demonstrate to me that Iran really, really has a bomb - and experts think that it's up to a decade away (see, for example, this link) - can you also be so sure they'd risk annihilation to use it? Nukes - when both sides have them - are a deterrent against aggression, and until quite recently, this formed a plank of US nuclear policy.

Please read the thread. I have answered these points before and I don't want to repeat myself.


Sorry if I don't have the time to wade through each and every page here, I'm responding to the initial post. If you don't want to read it, feel free to skip it, but I'm speaking my mind.

Simple. Iran is sitting on a SURPLUS of power. There is no motive to develop nuclear power for peaceful reasons. The idea that Iran somehow needs nuclear power is beyond ludicrous, therefore the only logical conclusion is that a weapons program is the true goal.

Can I be sure they'd risk annihilation? Not the country as a whole, but a splinter group financed and backed by the country....absolutely. Why? Because we've seen SEVERAL suicidal terrorist groups supported by, financed by, and sheltered by Iran.

As I said, I haven't read each and every page here, so I can't tell if the author has ever lived in the Middle East, I have. While the majority are peace-loving people, kiss the wife (or wives) and the kids and go to work just like you or I, there is also a large contingent who simply care nothing for this life and will risk everything (including their lives) for a theoretical place in the afterlife with 40 virgins, etc. etc. While many muslims feel the Jihad is a war of words, there are also many who feel it is an actual war with only one outcome, convert or genocide...and that's simply the way it is.

I'd agree that the arguement that the US has sponsored terrorism is valid, but that isn't what the thread is about. You asked if Iran realistically posed a threat to the US, and the answer is an emphatic YES. Also, this risk isn't dependent on independent development of atomic weapons. There are still many missing nukes from Russia's breakup, and Iran certainly had the funds to obtain some. In addition there are biological and other WOMDs that can be utilized.

Does this threat justify a US invasion? I would have to answer NO, the case cannot be made for that, but that wasn't your question.



Had there been a way of quietly replacing Saddam with a democracy, I suspect that it might have been accomplished, although the upwelling of religious fervour we've seen does make this look a little shaky, I'll admit.


I disagree. The non-desire of democracy does not however make the Iraqis a bad people. They are simply not used to it, and the style of government does not align well with its cultural ideals and practices. Democracy is not a "one-size fits all" style of government, despite what many of my fellow westerners believe. Muslims typically favor a strong central leader and public figure, and usually wish to attach some religious significance to this as well. This is simply their tendency and what they are used to, and should not be forced into adopting our ideals. (imho) This shoehorning and force-feeding of Western culture is exactly why we're facing the problems in the region (and of course our sponsoring of Israel).

As an aside, from what I've read of this thread, excellent job on the point-counterpoint. Have to give credit where it's due...


[edit on 28-8-2006 by Gazrok]



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 07:46 AM
link   


Simple. Iran is sitting on a SURPLUS of power. There is no motive to develop nuclear power for peaceful reasons. The idea that Iran somehow needs nuclear power is beyond ludicrous, therefore the only logical conclusion is that a weapons program is the true goal.


just to point out Iran may be sitting on the 3rd or sp largest oil/gas reserve which wont last for ever, the less they consume on their turf the more they will have to export and make money.

also iran is sitting on a very large resource of euraninum which it can use for nuclear power in which i dont see why it shouldnt flaunt that insted of having to bow down to US critics and take the alternitive of buying the recactors from US and other western firms and then having to buy enriched uranium which it can produce for less, making it less relient on outside help.

so your logic is flawed there

also before the Iranian revolution didnt the US want to build Iran a reactor?
big money for US firms


also if you got evidence for a nuclear weapons program plz feel free to show it
(i know its ur opinion)

on topic:

why is iran a threat to the US
answers simple it isnt the US media and goverment have twisted things so much to portray Iran as the evil entity making them look evil,
also in my opinion its more to do with the US watching the zionest regieme in Israels back.

also the plain ovious fact iran dont give a **** what the US says to them



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 07:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
I see, so perhaps the people who die of old age in Iraq should be accounted too no? and i guess you want to include the people killed by the insurgents/terrorists, oh wait, you already did and exagerated the figures even more for your own agenda.... hummm....


I already said, this is off-topic.

Had you actually read the links I was gracious enough to provide, you would have learned that normal death rates were taken into account. The fact that you did not is hardly a surprise.

The point is that disruption to food and water supplies was caused by the US-led invasion: therefore fatalities arising therefrom can be laid at their door.



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 07:54 AM
link   


also if you got evidence for a nuclear weapons program plz feel free to show it
(i know its ur opinion)


You said it yourself...3rd largest surplus. It isn't just my opinion, it's deductive reasoning. The development of nuclear power is not a sound financial move, and therefore one can only assume an ulterior motive. Likewise, Iran's power needs don't amount to a drop in the bucket as far as their surplus.

It isn't difficult to hide programs in closed societies. That's why they are closed.



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 08:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
You said it yourself...3rd largest surplus. It isn't just my opinion, it's deductive reasoning. The development of nuclear power is not a sound financial move, and therefore one can only assume an ulterior motive. Likewise, Iran's power needs don't amount to a drop in the bucket as far as their surplus.

It isn't difficult to hide programs in closed societies. That's why they are closed.


Irans population now (around 75126,0) in 5 years time estimated 85966,0
which will increase every year,
as the population increase the use of power will increase , with that the account of inductry has to be taken into account as that grows the more power they will consume,

normal coal,oil powerplants dont produce as enough power as a nuclear powerplant which can produce what 3-5 coal/oil power plants can produce,
hence why its more cost effective as it will produce more power.
being in the middle east this also brings in one advantage if they have a surplus of power they can sell it to their neigbours who want to conserve their natural resources.

so in the long run it is a viable source and in finance it can save countless millions.
so its not always about looking to the present its about looking into the future aswell.



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 08:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
Humm commondreams....not exactly a "pro-eminent website"....and I don't see anything in there that mentions nuclear pre-emtive strikes...

So, do you have any evidence that there is a "pre-emtive nuclear strike" policy in the U.S.?


Commondreams were simply republishing an article from the L.A. Times, as a simple glance at the extract posted would have revealed. I'm sure you'd have preferred me to go to The Drudge Report for my sources.

As for the US nuclear posture, have you missed all the fuss about the use of nuclear "bunker-busters" against Iran?

In this article, we see that


Thirteen of the nation’s most prominent physicists have written a letter to President Bush, calling U.S. plans to reportedly use nuclear weapons against Iran “gravely irresponsible” and warning that such action would have “disastrous consequences for the security of the United States and the world.”


And from the letter itself:


Dear Mr. President:

Recent articles in the New Yorker and Washington post report that the use of tactical nuclear weapons against Iran is being actively considered by Pentagon planners and by the White House. As members of the profession that brought nuclear weapons into existence, we urge you to refrain from an action that would have grave consequences for America and for the world.

1800 of our fellow physicists have joined in a petition opposing new US nuclear weapons policies that open the door to the use of nuclear weapons in situations such as Iran's... This is a major and dangerous shift in the rationale for nuclear weapons.



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 08:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
It isn't difficult to hide programs in closed societies. That's why they are closed.


It isn't difficult to hide programs in supposedly open societies either. That's why this board exists!



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 08:23 AM
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.
Lets see.Aside from vowing 2 wipe our allay israel off the map,supportihg hizbollah.kidnapping u.s.embassy staff.being perpetual international pariah.lawbreaking zealots seeking nuclear weapons and delivery systems?No,then i cant think of a SINGLE threat.Is that SPECIFIC ENOUGH 4 U?B.T.W.Thank God ur not in charge of this countries defense as it would be worlds largest cemetary.



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 08:42 AM
link   
Well done Rich its really refreshing to read the comments of a free thinker. As I have posted myself in the past on this very topic why would the worlds only superpower be bothered about a two bit country like Iran (no disrespect to Iranians). Iran does not pose any threat to the USA and never will, its about Oil and before people start saying America has got plenty of oil reserves they want more. Do you stop wanting money, or food or material possesions when you already have them no you want more. America is using the Nuclear issue as a reason to invade and if it was not that excuse it would be something else like the terrorist plots like they used for invading Iraq. The American media is scaring people to death and they are swallowing the tripe thats fed to them. The overseas US bases are the same as ours were in the Empire days, refueling and rearming your global reach to control whoever you like. The answer is simple, you make war to control people, land and natural resources and for no other reason, its a tried and tested method that works every time.



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 08:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
Sorry if I don't have the time to wade through each and every page here, I'm responding to the initial post... I'm speaking my mind.


Go for it. And a Super Moderator (that such a godlike being should take an interest in this humble thread!) must be busy, busy, busy



Iran is sitting on a SURPLUS of power... therefore the only logical conclusion is that a weapons program is the true goal.


I cannot deny that there is logic here, but I don't think it's the only logical conclusion. I think that they want to earn maximum foreign currency and be set for whatever's going to happen when the oil does run out in a few decades' time. Also, they may have a weapons programme in mind, but it's certainly not an imminent thing. Remember, I'm trying to sort the wheat from the chaff in this thread - to look at what is, as far as we can tell, the reality of the situation, as opposed to the hype that says WE MUST INVADE IRAN NOW OR WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!!!


Can I be sure they'd risk annihilation? Not the country as a whole, but a splinter group financed and backed by the country....absolutely. Why? Because we've seen SEVERAL suicidal terrorist groups supported by, financed by, and sheltered by Iran.


Nobody's denying there are suicide bombers out there. (Well, I'm not, anyway.) But what I am saying is that Ahmedinabad's been deliberately misquoted and that the people responsible for the welfare of the country are unlikely to start giving nukes to fanatics who might bring death and destruction down on the entire country. Ahmedinabad does not, to me, come across as someone quite that fanatical - but then I've taken the trouble to read his speeches (and find decent translations) and the text of the letter he sent Bush.

As for the terrorist groups funded by Iran, so far, none of them have yet had nukes - just hand-launched rockets. No worse than the kind of stuff the US used to hand out to Islamic extremists in Afghanistan, in fact. And they have a local focus: it's about the Palestinians and about US presence on their doorstep. As we've already established, they have good reason to feel very nervous about the presence of the US anywhere nearby.


...I can't tell if the author has ever lived in the Middle East,


I haven't. I do have some close Iraqi and Iranian friends, and my best friend all the way back from childhood has travelled extensively throughout the region.


I have. While the majority are peace-loving people...there are also many who feel it is an actual war with only one outcome, convert or genocide...


But even those people realise the dangers of retaliation on the scale the US would unleash if it got nuked. Making themselves martyrs is glorious: bringing death and destruction down on their families, is something, I would suggest, that even they might balk at. Ever since True Lies, the movies have done a great job of promoting a picture of the Arab Terrorist but I don't think that even the most fanatical are quite as mad as the image we all receive.

You lived in the ME: did you meet any suicide bombers or jihadists yourself? Did you actually meet anyone who would be prepared to see their loved ones incinerated for a suicide mission they had undertaken?


You asked if Iran realistically posed a threat to the US, and the answer is an emphatic YES.


Actually, I've been refining the question - I'm looking for genuine, non-propagandistic evidence that Iran poses an imminent threat to the US that makes it worthy of attack. (And economic points, like swapping to Euros, don't count because they should be free to do with their economy as they see fit.) Remember, the purpose of this thread is to try and counter the hype that's undoubtedly going on to prepare the US population for an attack on Iran.


There are still many missing nukes from Russia's breakup, and Iran certainly had the funds to obtain some.


And this has been the case for how long now? Quite some time.

I would think that it would be in Iran's best interests to ensure that nukes certainly do not fall into the wrong hands, because they must know they'll carry the can if anything like that goes down.


Does this threat justify a US invasion? I would have to answer NO, the case cannot be made for that, but that wasn't your question.


Well, actually, that was the implicit question that has emerged as the thread has developed. It was really there all along.


I disagree. The non-desire of democracy does not however make the Iraqis a bad people. They are simply not used to it, and the style of government does not align well with its cultural ideals and practices. Democracy is not a "one-size fits all" style of government, despite what many of my fellow westerners believe. Muslims typically favor a strong central leader and public figure, and usually wish to attach some religious significance to this as well. This is simply their tendency and what they are used to, and should not be forced into adopting our ideals. (imho) This shoehorning and force-feeding of Western culture is exactly why we're facing the problems in the region (and of course our sponsoring of Israel).


This is thoughtful but yet is such a sweeping statement that it's in danger of looking racist. I know that's the farthest thing from your mind, so please don't think I'm accusing you of that.

I would look at things slightly differently. Remember that Iran had a democracy back in the fifties? This would seem to counter your assertion that Muslims necessarily wish to attach religious significance to a strong leader. I think that the US really, really blew it big time by subverting Mossadegh's government because at the time, there was a feeling of optimism about the modern world, and a sense that democracy and progress were good things. By creating the coup and the vicious police state that followed it, the US sent a message that these ideals of democracy and progress were decadent Western lies, and the Imams stepped into the gap. There was a point, I believe, when democracy really could have taken hold in the region. If Mossadegh had been allowed to carry through his programme, and the Iranians had become a better-educated, healthier, more prosperous people as a result, then extremism would have had less to work with.

Likewise, when Saddam was at his height, the Iraqis were actually well-educated and with the lowest infant mortality rate in the region (always a good indicator of general well-being). It's since renewed poverty and chaos has come to the country that the extremist elements have come to the fore.

And thanks for the good word about the level of debate. I try.



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xfile
Lets see.Aside from vowing 2 wipe our allay israel off the map,supportihg hizbollah.kidnapping u.s.embassy staff.being perpetual international pariah.lawbreaking zealots seeking nuclear weapons and delivery systems?No,then i cant think of a SINGLE threat.Is that SPECIFIC ENOUGH 4 U?B.T.W.Thank God ur not in charge of this countries defense as it would be worlds largest cemetary.


I have dealt with each of these points in previous posts. Kindly read them before repeating what others have already said.



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by magicmushroom
...its a tried and tested method that works every time.


It strains my credulity that it's working for a second time so soon after the Iraq debacle. Still...



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 09:19 AM
link   
What people fail to realize, is that the word "threat" can mean things other than "military strike".

(In this post, when I say "Iran", understand that I am referring to the governing powers of Iran, not necessarily the Iranian people, who, in my experience, are as friendly & cultured as any other peoples I have had the privelege of meeting)

Iran and Iraq have wrangling for political "pole position" in the middle east for centuries. Now that the US has effectively removed Iraq from the table, Iran sees it's chance to assume the role of the regional military power. Iran as the regional power would quite probably constitute an economic threat to the US and possibly a military threat to countries allied with the US.

An economic threat, which could revolve around drastically inflated oil prices or an outright embargo, especially if done in concert with someone like Venezuela, would be seen by the US government as an untennable situation. It would devestate the national economy, cause massive job loss, home loss, unemployment, and create undue hardship on the average American citizens, especially those of the lower-middle and under classes.

Why all of the fuss about Iran's nuclear ambitions? The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Iran signed it, and are bound by it. To renouce the treaty would be percieved as a threat, even by the EU and UN in general, and result in immediate economic and quite possibly military action. So, they are bound by the Treaty.

Now you may ask, Why not take action against Israel for acquiring nuclear arms then? Simple, Israel isn't a signator or the Treaty, and therefore not bound by it.


Strange world, but such is the nature of international politics and diplomacy.



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 09:51 AM
link   
The real reason for Iran to be a major threat is the same reason that Iraq was a threat. IT HAS TO DO WITH THE OIL CURRENCY OF TRADE. These wars are really petrodollar wars. The United States has free/gravitational energy in it's possession.

Petrodollar vs. Petroeuro.

Please read this article:

"Iran Oil Bourse and Petrodollar Wars"
www.iranian.ws...

Don't expect it to be in any of America's major news networks since the secret government controls the visible government which controls the media.

People talk about conspiracy being here and there, but the truth on many subjects are being covered up on a daily basis. Much of it has to do with control and money. The pharmaceutical companies make money off of selling you stuff that you don't know what it is made of and hide the real cure for diseases, disorders and sicknesses. For example, Vitamin B-17 IS THE CURE FOR CANCER as much as cancer can be killed from natural sources. It has been left out of the major vitamin stores nationwide. It is mostly found in the pits(seeds) of apricots. Now, I don't even see apricots in stores anymore. The real people controlling the United States care more about money and power than about health and the environment for all of humanity.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join