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.

 

Iran Continues Defiant Posturing

page: 1
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 26 2006 @ 11:15 PM
link   
Irrespective of Global opinion that is rising in opposition to Iran's nuclear aspirations, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announces on Saturday, the opening of a Heavy Water Reactor. Seeming to almost revel in the conflict over Nuclear Proliferation, Ahmadinejad continues on a path that could lead to more Middle Eastern aggression.
 



www.nytimes.c om
TEHRAN, Aug. 26 — Just days before it is supposed to suspend enrichment of uranium or face the prospect of sanctions, Iran continues to project an image of defiance and confidence. Its position regarding the demand that it suspend enrichment remains a determined “no.”
~~~~~~~
On Saturday, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made a provocative, if symbolic, gesture by formally inaugurating a heavy-water reactor. The Iranians say the plant would be used for peaceful power generation. But nuclear experts note that heavy-water facilities are more useful for weapons because they produce lots of plutonium — the preferred ingredient for missile warheads.
~~~~~~~
“Having nuclear technology and using it is a blessing and is the right of all nations, including Iran,” Mr. Ahmadinejad said. “As the people’s representative, I pursue whatever people want. Today they want to have nuclear technology and I pursue this demand and will not back down.”


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Ahmadinejad appears set on a path of assured destruction. While elected on a campaign of reform, the economy of Iran remains unchanged while millions go into this pet project designed more to inflame Ahmadinejad's enemies than improve Iran.

Perhaps if the United Nations imposes sanctions, some country will be able to find a solution in the twelve years it takes them to act on those sanctions.

Will fear of Russian and Chinese inclusion continue to hold the rest of the world in a gridlock of fear?

Related News Links:
www.isis-online.org
www.firstwatchint.org
www.payvand.com

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
politics.abovetopsecret.com...


[edit on 27-8-2006 by UM_Gazz]




posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 09:29 AM
link   
So I take it you guys are not into discussing the topic then?

Yes Semper I agree, Iran is just feeding the flames so to speak, they are not helping the situation at all. They know that China and Russia will most likely veto any sanctions on them, like sanctions alone will resolve this situation, which is why they continue to do whatever they want. The UN has proven to be nothing but a debate club, yet again.



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 11:15 AM
link   
Here is the fundamental difference on ATS. There are two classes of arguments.

1). People that still believe what our administration and Media distorts about the original truth, without using an empathetic bone in their body. Did you know if you lived in most other countries in the world, Bush and Co. is compared to the likes of Saddamm and even Hitler.

2). People that see no use in bullying other countries to get what they want. I for one have not been any safer for the 250 million dollars a day that is being spent on fruitless wars that are only birthing more hate against americans. Basically he is making our futures more unsafe. He is taking his dismall approval rating for himself, and dragging the entire country down with him.

I for one would like to see New Orleans be rebuilt faster. The highways systems could use an overhaul. R & D into cleaner energy for future. Our education system is failing under Bush's "no child left behind" act. And then we can't forget about all the needy people abroad that need help.

Does bush think that Bill Gates will handle all that?


AAC



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 12:29 PM
link   
It is possible that with the opening of this "heavy water reactor" that Israel will make a decision to take unilateral action on Iran. As I remember, about 2 years ago when Iran was building this reactor, Israelis were making threats, saying things like "This heavy water reactor will never see a full day of operation" giving the impression that they would take out this and other nuclear facilities in Iran.

I do believe that in the very near future these nuclear facilities in Iran, especially the ones that can be used to create high grade nuclear fuel, will be taken out in a series of air strikes, lead by, or initiated by the Israelis, and within short time from that the US military will join in on joint US Israeli air strikes to "clean up" what ever threats still exist.

Iran has pushed this to the very limit, knowing what could and now most likely will happen.



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 12:38 PM
link   
I'll have to agree UM,

Israel is not well known for simple posturing, rather for action.

The BIG question is where does all of this take us?

Semper



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
Sorry, it wasn't meant as a personal attack, just as a way to show that what should be a unbiased news submission (I thought that was the reason for ATSNN existence) was posted in the same way as other posts are made on the other forums.

Also, it was more as a comment to mythatsabigprobe's post.

ATSNN has never been without bias, as far as I remember, But it should be a place for reasoned debate, I agree.

Regardless, what Semperfortis posted is factually true. Iran does not want to be part of the global community. They recently refused IAEA inspectors access to a site.

Semper, I hope that the weight of the UN behind any sanctions will help to change Iran's mind and attitude. But the UN needs the co-operation of it's member nations to make a diference. And I don't hold out much hope for that scenario.



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 12:49 PM
link   
jsobecky, I agree. I don't see the United Nations doing any more than they always do; nothing.

To the other poster; as far as bias goes:


You must give us an additional one to three paragraph comment, in your own words, that will help our members understand your analysis or point of view on the news article you're submitting. Please do not copy-and-paste material from the news source into this area of your submission.


I believe the key words are "Your analysis or Point of View." I believe this is well within the guidelines set down by ATS.

Just because something is against what you believe does not mean it should not be posted. Shades of fascism!!!!

Now back to the topic

Semper



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
The BIG question is where does all of this take us?

Semper

Pretty much where Um_Gazz predicts it will. The primary catalyst will be Israel. I don't see Russia or China getting involved militarily. They will protest and condemn, but aside from supplying arms to Iran, will not commit troops.

When we do get involved, it should not be with an eye towards occupation, but limited to disabling the nuclear sites and setting Iran's program back 10 years.

Just my .02

[edit on 27-8-2006 by jsobecky]



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 12:56 PM
link   
And I hope your right!

What a mess!!!

When did we outlaw the assassination of world leaders? Does it apply when they are maniacs?

Semper



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 05:42 PM
link   
yes and Iran will return fire on israel who will then nuke iran.


stupidity to the nth degree.

if this happens and the usa gets involved , russia has allready said it will use nuclear arms in defence.



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 05:54 PM
link   
I'm puzzled by all the talk about taking out Iran, etc. etc. Did they attack anyone? Did they build or are they building a nuclear weapon? If the question to either of these IS NOT a definitive 'YES!' then I don't see any rationale in striking Iran. If Israel wants to be the aggressor then let them, but the US should be smart enough to pursue economic sanctions, etc. before bombing another country PRE-EMPTIVELY.




[edit on 27-8-2006 by Jamuhn]



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 06:21 PM
link   
"They" are talking about building one.
"We" are talking about our opinions.

Nothing more
Nothing less


Semper



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin
yes and Iran will return fire on israel who will then nuke iran.


I assume that retaliatory systems such as long range missiles will also be high on the target list. That's not to say we'll get all of them but I don't see Israel nuking anyone over one or two IRBM's. The US wont let them nuke Iran, because there is no need and it would only further complicate the situation.


Originally posted by Harlequin
if this happens and the usa gets involved , russia has allready said it will use nuclear arms in defence.


When has Russia said they will get involved and defend Iran much less use nuclear weapons? Quite honestly I don't think they will, perhaps protest and sell weapons to Iran but I doubt they will get directly involved.



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
"They" are talking about building one.

Can you show me where Iran said they were going to build a nuclear weapon?


"We" are talking about our opinions.

......Most of us here discuss with our opinions. Am I missing your point?


[edit on 27-8-2006 by Jamuhn]



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 07:22 PM
link   
Nice to see how welcome US supremacy is when it comes to countries that do not bend to our wishes . . .

Is ok to bomb and kill people because their leaders, have thoughts, ideas and dreams of protecting their countries from what they believe could be a danger to their sovereignty.

Then I wonder who are the real terrorist around the world.


It seems to come from all sides of the world.



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jamuhn
Can you show me where Iran said they were going to build a nuclear weapon?


Not really in exact words, however when you look at some of the things Ahmadinejad has said publicly you may be better able to understand why the US, UK, and especially the Israelis see Iran as a major threat. Ahmadinejad is not afraid, in fact he seems hell bent on conflict and war, But is he all talk? who knows?

Anyone?

Some quotes from Ahmadinejad:



"Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury,"

"Iran is ready to transfer nuclear know-how to the Islamic countries due to their need"

"We believe that atomic energy is a blessing given by God,"

More Here


From BBC news:



"We are asked why we have started [nuclear] research. We answer that there is no limitation to research. There are no limits imposed on research in NPT [Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty] or in the Additional Protocol. Nor have we made such a commitment. Research is necessary for the life and dynamism of a nation."

"As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map."

"They have created a myth today that they call the massacre of Jews and they consider it a principle above God, religions and the prophets."

"Belief in a saviour is universal. It is the pivot of our beliefs as Muslims and Iranians. We believe that an offspring of the prophet, may peace be upon him, will be the ultimate saviour. His name and attributes are clear. He will come and will administer ultimate justice."

More Here


Again from BBC news:



"The corrupt powers like America, the criminal Britain and the shameful and humiliated Zionist regime were armed up to their teeth with laser bombs, advanced aircraft, advanced tanks, an accurate artillery and a wicked and vicious army... On the other hand a group of faithful, pure, divine youth stood against them and with the help of God trusted God's pledge and resisted against the enemy.

They could defeat these idolatrous powers within 33 days with the help of God and fly the flag of victory in the proud Lebanon."


It is a simple question, can the world afford the risk of a nuclear armed Iran with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as President?

Better yet, do you believe the Israelis will sit idle while Iran continues down the path of amassing nuclear weaponry?

I think without some major changes and very soon, preemptive strikes on Iran will be inevitable, perhaps even imminent.

But there is always hope in diplomacy and sanctions, right?

Maybe the collective prayer on all sides will avoid any real violence.

And maybe pigs really do fly.



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 09:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by UM_Gazz

Originally posted by Jamuhn
Can you show me where Iran said they were going to build a nuclear weapon?


Not really in exact words,


Your first five words answered my question.

From your own sources Gazz, more quotes from Iran's president...

A nation which has culture, logic and civilisation does not need nuclear weapons. The countries which seek nuclear weapons are those which want to solve all problems by the use of force. Our nation does not need such weapons.

news.bbc.co.uk...


Under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), a country has the right to enrich its own fuel for civil nuclear power, under IAEA inspection.

Iran says it is simply doing what it allowed to do. It argues that it needs nuclear power and wants to control the whole process itself. It says it will not use the technology to make a nuclear bomb.

news.bbc.co.uk...

If you want to fault Iran's president for downplaying the Holocaust, or wanting regime change in Israel that's a different story.

I don't know if Iran is going to or even wants to get nuclear weapons and neither do you. I don't pretend to make the assumption that I know, yet you pretend to assume that Iran is already making stock-piles of nuclear weapons. My only problem is the wanton nature of war-making that has been occurring recently. Everyone is so quick to say 'Bomb Iran, bomb Iran!' without any evidence of wrong-doing and seems to not care that thousands upon thousands of innocent people will die as a result.

By the way, which country is next on THE list?



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 09:24 PM
link   
Jamuhn, I am not supporting or defending either side of this issue, I am simply trying to show how the case is being made.

Perhaps the Iranian leader has been misquoted, or had words taken out of context, or maybe he is as crazy as some claim.

It is how those who are directly affected by these threats (perceived or real) take it.

The point I am making, is that there is a sense of inevitability in all of this, it seems as if war will happen despite all efforts to stop it.

We can choose who is to blame another time.

Or will it be too late?



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 09:42 PM
link   
And again,

We are so ready and willing to excuse, rationalize and justify, even the most vile of harangues coming from any country except our own!

While we hold the President responsible for every slip and mistake in his speech, we gladly and even zealously defend the mad banter from some middle eastern potentate.

Where are our values? Where are our loyalties? We demand tolerance from ourselves and allow (and defend) others to defame, kidnap and inslave.

Keep defending this madman, maybe he will one day rule you and your wishes will all come true. Yet then who will defend your rights to sit there and pass judgment? Not I, I will have died in the first volley.

Semper



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
While we hold the President responsible for every slip and mistake in his speech, we gladly and even zealously defend the mad banter from some middle eastern potentate.


Who is defending the speeches of the Iranian president? Or do you think that just because someone is not chanting 'Kill, Kill, Kill' to anything that moves in the Middle East that they are justifying what they do? Somehow you jump from the Iranian goverment not being anywhere close to having a military as strong the USs to having illusions of grandeur as you fight them off if they attack our country. Let me give you a reality check here, noone is attacking our country, noone is even close to being capable of attacking our country, and god-forbid anyone does because I fear most people will be too fat on their asses to stand up and grab a gun.

And, I don't think you are so naive that you do not realize that injustice is abound in the world at-large and is not confined to these little speeches of the Iranian president. You're so concerned when the Iranian president downplays the Holocaust, yet I see you say nothing about the genocide in Darfur, the LRA's massacre in Uganda, the prison that is North Korea, the clusterbombs in Lebanon, or a host of other more immediate problems in this world.

Why should we not hold up the leader of our country to a higher standard? Do all the grotesque human rights' violations and dictatorial powers of other leaders give our president a free pass to act the same? America should be a bastion of human liberty and dignity which includes the right to live. Instead, we have people here that call en masse for the destruction of another country while they drive their Hummers to a from work, sleep in their multi-thousand dollar beds, and complain when gas prices go up $.10.

I do sympathize though as it seems many people are quick to loose their composure and resort to the same tactics that despotic foes use. But, as America was/is (that's up for debate) and should be a beacon of civilization, moderation, and liberty, the doctrine of pre-emptive strikes and aggressive wars do not fit well with such values.

[edit on 27-8-2006 by Jamuhn]



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join