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.

 

Bush warns Iran

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 07:39 PM
link   
Bush has now really broadened the fight against muslim terrorists.

He called it "battle of the century". Thats really rasing the stakes.

He sees a very difficult and hard fight ahead. These terrorists are not just a few in one part of a country.

He is now going to take on the world wide fight to clear terrorists in every part of the globe.

President says Iraq is central to victory on terrorim. He claim that US must not lose in Iraq.

by the looks of it, Bush is losing very badly in Iraq. come senators are calling it America's new Vietnam.


news.bbc.co.uk...

news.bbc.co.uk...

news.bbc.co.uk...




[edit on 3-9-2006 by mr conspiracy]




posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by mr conspiracy
Bush has now really broadened the fight against muslim terrorists.

He called it "battle of the century". Thats really rasing the stakes.

He sees a very difficult and hard fight ahead. These terrorists are not just a few in one part of a country.



Mr.conspiracy the reason he is broadening his war and make it global is to be able to tag the countries that are opposing to sanctions against Iran as part of the evil facing the US.

He actually did that before Iraq when France, Gemany and Russia opposed to the invasion.

He is actually playing by the book, very soon the propaganda against China and Russia any anybody that agrees with those country will be in full gear.

But like US boycott France wine, I wonder how they will boycott Walmart.



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 10:08 AM
link   
I agree marge


I feel that at this point we are basically declaring war against the world...unfortunately that is the impression I am left with. At a time when we are supposed to be trying diplomacy with Iran you dont stand behind the diplomats screaming threats.. its kinda contradictory to the whole diplomactic process.

Why does our President continue to talk when he shouldnt. Then turn around and not talk when he should. He being nothing more than an instigator, IMO. His rhetoric is a just as ridiculous and insane as the Iranians.. "Wipe Israel of the map" comment(which I believe to be a deliberate mistranslation.

"your either with us or aginst us"......scary scary thought... Well I am not for terrorism but I amnot especially looking forward to globalist Fascism either... so where does that leave the pacifists of the world? up the creek without the paddle. Wheres my paddle ?


Ox

posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 08:08 AM
link   
Cinosamitna I couldnt have said it better myself....
And Marg.. youre right.. the reason he is broadening his "war on terror" is to attack the governments who are opposed to the sanctions...

It's utter horse crap.. pure and simple, the fact that Bush isnt getting his own way.. and is trying to FORCE Iran to stop something that they have the right to do is wrong.. As soon as Bush mentioned "Nuclear Weapons" in Iran, the world got in a frenzy.. Iran's President is trying to get his people out of the dark ages and make his country an independant nation.. This isnt against the law... It's against Bush's grand plan of plundering the world for all it's oil and leaving it in ruin, Only for Haliburton to come in and rebuild with no bid contracts so Him and Cheney can stand to make billions of dollars



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 08:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ox
So Bush is at it again...

Why is this a "Bush" thing?

Why isn't this a "Iran is breaking international law" thing? Or a "Iran ignores the most important treaty of our time" thing?

Regardless of what GWB may or may not have done in the past, Iran is in the wrong. They are ignoring the UN, ignoring pleas from other nations, and breaking the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Iran is a signatory state of this treaty, and while they have the right to pursue a civilian nuclear energy program, they are pursuing it outside the auspices of the IAEA, which breaks the treaty.

I am NOT a Bush apologist by any stretch of the imagination, but why must people make this a "Bush" thing instead of putting the responsiblilty squarely on the shoulders of those who are running Iran?


Ox

posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 08:35 AM
link   
Why is this a Bush thing? uhh lets see.. he's the one refusing the talks and making a big deal out of it??

Prove to me that Iran is using their nuclear technology for weapons.. There is no proof.. Just because the Iranian President apparently said "Israel will be wiped off the map" Did you hear him say that? No.. Neither did I.. It's hearsay.. It's a "quote" and it could be wrong...

And now, Bush is going after the "global terrorists" who are supporting Iran.. namely the countries that against the Iran sanctions..

As I said.. Iran is wanting strong, SERIOUS talks.. but it's hard to speak seriously with a clown.. Iran doesnt believe that they should stop their enrichment during talks.. And why should they.. They have every right..

Do a little research on the Iranian President... He grew up in Iran when it was at war with Iraq... probably under some harsh conditions.. If he can help his people not live that way anymore.. then he's going to fix it.. Atleast he's doing something good for his people I cant say that for our own President



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 08:47 AM
link   
Personally I do not want to see Iran attain nuclear capability. The US has time and again researched the fact that they are sponsors of terrorism around the globe. As far as the Iranian president saying that Isreal should be wiped off the map being hearsay, well, when I have more time I will look up where hes quoted saying that and post it. I cant remember where I read it at the moment. I want to see Bush take a more active role against Iran. The time is now.

Sure I think everyone is entitled to technology, but not at the cost of another's safety. Iran says all they want to do is defend itself, and I beleive they want more than that. I beleive the agenda is to destroy.

As far as comparing Iraq to Iran, I beleive that Iraq was done as a short term goal to get to Iran. I fully back President Bush in his endeavers to stomp Iran out.

Just my 2 pennies,

Aaron



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ox
Why is this a Bush thing? uhh lets see.. he's the one refusing the talks and making a big deal out of it??

Prove to me that Iran is using their nuclear technology for weapons.. There is no proof.. Just because the Iranian President apparently said "Israel will be wiped off the map" Did you hear him say that? No.. Neither did I.. It's hearsay.. It's a "quote" and it could be wrong...

And now, Bush is going after the "global terrorists" who are supporting Iran.. namely the countries that against the Iran sanctions..

As I said.. Iran is wanting strong, SERIOUS talks.. but it's hard to speak seriously with a clown.. Iran doesnt believe that they should stop their enrichment during talks.. And why should they.. They have every right..

Do a little research on the Iranian President... He grew up in Iran when it was at war with Iraq... probably under some harsh conditions.. If he can help his people not live that way anymore.. then he's going to fix it.. Atleast he's doing something good for his people I cant say that for our own President

Listen, I have no problem with Iran seeking technology for peaceful use, none at all, but there is an established procedure to do so. They signed the NNPT and are bound by it, that means that they have a forum in which to have talks, and rules that they have to abide by. They want serious talks? Fine, follow the Treaty & abide by the UN requirements.

This "serious talks" stuff is bogus. They have had the opportunity to do so, they still have the opportunity to do so, but they want to "do it their way". That makes them as bad as Bush & Company.

Attn. Iran- Follow the rule of law and the treaties you have signed, otherwise you're as barbaric and ham-handed as the slobs you oppose.




Edit- To correct spelling....sigh

[edit on 5-9-2006 by Reality Hurts]


Ox

posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 08:58 AM
link   
I'm not trying to be difficult and disagree with you.. and I understand the rules they have to live by but I dont think they were given fair chance.. As soon as the news came out of their enrichment program Bush and his big head stepped up and started throwing out orders to them.. And demanding they stop or there would be "Consequences"... Which he has no right to do... There is still due process.. Which takes time.. and I believe the reason Iran is being so defiant is simply to spite Bush... That's all there is to it.. They want to make Bush out to be the bad guy and so far, I think they're doing a damn fine job of it..



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ox
Why is this a Bush thing? uhh lets see.. he's the one refusing the talks and making a big deal out of it??

Ok, so a clandestine nuclear research program outside the auspices of the NNPT completely out of sight of IAEA inspectors for nearly two decades is not a “big deal”. Refusals of the requests by the international community in a vast majority of attempts to gain trust and transparency were all curbed by Iran, not the US. The “refusal’s to talk” about this issue did not originate with GB.


Originally posted by Ox
Prove to me that Iran is using their nuclear technology for weapons.. There is no proof..

There is no proof either way! This onus falls upon Iran (the point of the NNPT) as she is the one inhibiting inspectors, refusing to clear up items in IAEA reports annually and breaking the verification processes as required by the NNPT. “Serious” talks have occurred and this recent bout will be just another stall tactic.


Originally posted by Ox
Do a little research on the Iranian President...

Well…he’s not as a rosy as you paint him….

After the revolution Ahmadinejad was involved with the OSU as a representative from Elm-o Sanaat (where the idea of storming the US embassy was raised)…many US hostages have ID’ed Ahmadinejad as one of the hostage takers. In the Iran-Iraq war Ahmadinejad fought with the IRGC and later became part of the intelligence corps. Later he would be involved in extra-territorial operations and eventually would become a senior officer in Qods (where he was involved with dissident/political assassinations…not mentioning his ‘prison’ tenure). Here is where he became involved with Hezbollah…later mayor of Teheran...etc…etc…

Here is a good cross-section from various source types:

Washington Times
Global Security
BBC
US Newswire
Iran Focus


mg



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ox
I'm not trying to be difficult and disagree with you.. and I understand the rules they have to live by but I dont think they were given fair chance.. As soon as the news came out of their enrichment program Bush and his big head stepped up and started throwing out orders to them.. And demanding they stop or there would be "Consequences"... Which he has no right to do... There is still due process.. Which takes time.. and I believe the reason Iran is being so defiant is simply to spite Bush... That's all there is to it.. They want to make Bush out to be the bad guy and so far, I think they're doing a damn fine job of it..

Fair enough.

And let me explain my position on public commentary on international relations, i.e. what we do here.

I have a real problem with people (not saying you) who hold various parties accountable to different rules. Some hold America & Israel to a lax set of rules, and Iran and other ME countries to a more harsh set of rules. Some do the opposite.

I see people banter on and on about treaties and how nations must be held to them, "Oh, the Americans aren't doing this right" or "The Americans have broken international law when they...", "Abu Graib violated the Geneva Convention", "Illegal war in Iraq", etc.

Then when a nation, Iran, breaks what is probably the single most important treaty of our time, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, no one wants to hold them accountable. Their anti-American sentiment clouds their reasoning. The schadenfreud and the "Well, they deserve it" attitude overwhelms their normally rational judgement.

I hate to see people compromising their own integrity, whichever side their on, just out of personal feelings and not a rational, logical, objective point of view.

Let's hold all nations to the the rule of law.



Edit- Can't spell today

[edit on 5-9-2006 by Reality Hurts]


Ox

posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 10:02 AM
link   
ok.. now I never said the man was a saint.. I said he's trying to do more for his people.. Could I be wrong about the nuclear weapon thing.. Yes.. And if I am.. I'll admit it..

And you're right there is no proof.. And where are you getting a 20 year nuclear program from? I'm asking honestly.. cause I just dont know..

And I believe the reason that Iran is blocking inspectors is to just spite the hell out of Bush... Bush is throwing a hissy fit about it.. and thinks he's the Supreme Chancellor of the Globe set out to solve all the worlds problems, But doesnt realise.. he's creating more problems than he's solving..

I'm not defending Iran.. I'm arguing at point..



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 11:16 AM
link   
I just have to wonder if your clear hate for Bush is the reason that you are such an Iran Cheerleader. I mean look at your reasoning for them. They are blocking inspectors to spite Bush? Really listen to yourself. Bush is not the only person wanting inspectors.

Aaron


Ox

posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 11:24 AM
link   
Aaron.. While I appreciate your response.. have you read the entire thread? 1. I'm not an Iranian Cheerleader.. 2. I dislike Bush.. sure..

Read the original post.. And.. show me proof.. where another independant nation.. NOT the U.N has said they want inspectors and I will retract my previous statement



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 11:54 AM
link   
I really should work for the NWO. I could write a much better script with far fewer plot-holes & a lot less killing


ps it's time the usa gave up its nukes & DU too. hypocrites.



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reality Hurts

Let's hold all nations to the the rule of law.




What about our rewarding countries that are not even part of the NPT and knowingly create Nuclear weapons , like Pakistan, India and Israel? We give them more and yet without clear-cut proof of Iran even wanting military nukes we want to punish them? Have we ever had any inspectors at any of the 3 countries nuke sites?



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by missed_gear
Ok, so a clandestine nuclear research program outside the auspices of the NNPT completely out of sight of IAEA inspectors for nearly two decades is not a “big deal”. Refusals of the requests by the international community in a vast majority of attempts to gain trust and transparency were all curbed by Iran, not the US. The “refusal’s to talk” about this issue did not originate with GB.


I might be wrong on this one, but didn't Iran cooperate with the IAEA, inspections and all, up until the US brought the whole thing to the UN Security Council? I'm pretty sure I read this somewhere. Don't have the time to research it right now, but I believe things were pretty much under control before Bush entered the scene...

And as a slight digression, Brazil has a very similar nuclear program to Iran, they are a lot closer to the US, yet noone ever questioned their intentions. Oh I forgot! They're not muslims... silly me



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrLeary

I might be wrong on this one, but didn't Iran cooperate with the IAEA, inspections and all, up until the US brought the whole thing to the UN Security Council?


Yea, they ended voluntary cooperation in Fenruary 2006:


in response to the U.N. agency decision to refer Iran to the Security Council over fears the country is trying to develop a nuclear bomb
Link


[edit on 9/5/2006 by pstiffy]


Ox

posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 04:26 PM
link   
Now when I was asked earlier on today "Why is this a Bush thing" I gave an answer.. and now I have another one...
Bearing the headline "Bush wont allow a nuclear-armed Iran" yahoo news posted the following story...

Yahoo News




"I am not going to allow this to happen," Bush said in a speech on terrorism. "And no future American president can allow it, either."


There you have it.. Bush wants to leade this crusade.. like he did the last one.. and we all see how thats going



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 04:46 PM
link   
Most of what politicians say is rhetoric, meaningless in and of itself...especially when it comes from politicians in the positions that Mr. Bush and Mr. Ahmanijhad(i have no idea if I even remotely spelled that correctly. My apologies if not.). It's almost a requirement of the job for them to spew drivel of this nature...



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join