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.

 

Am I the only one who agrees with Iran?

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by conway21
TEHRAN, Iran -- President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Tuesday challenged the authority of the UN Security Council as Iran faces a deadline to halt its uranium enrichment and he called for a televised debate with U.S. President George Bush on world issues.
The Security Council has given Iran until Thursday to suspend enrichment, a process that can produce either fuel for a reactor or material for weapons.
"The U.S. and Britain are the source of many tensions," Ahmadinejad said at a news conference. "At the Security Council, where they have to protect security, they enjoy the veto right. If anybody confronts them, there is no place to take complaints to.
"This (veto right) is the source of problems of the world. ... It is an insult to the dignity, independence, freedom and sovereignty of nations," he said.


He does indeed make a good point, however (and this coming from neither a liberal or conservative standpoint) I would'nt come to a conclusion about it being a good idea about Iran being able to get enriched uranium so quickly. Being born IN TEHRAN, I know about there gov. and there policies twards its own citizens and abroad. Iran is backing Hammas, and with the situation between Hammas and israel (FOR THE SAKE OF PEACE) I dont think it would be a good idea to put nuclear capabilities Homble intioned or not into Irans hands.

Granted though the US does shift the truth around to make Iran look like a monster under our beds, but thats just how they deal with the people of the U.S. they use fear tactics and make refrences to 9/11 and call countries like Iran, or lebanon "terrorist Harboring countries" then off to war you go with whomever you want to blame.

It hurts me to see the area of the world I come from to look like such a bad and dangerous place. Everytime I turn on the news I hear about Iraqi's killed, lebanese civilians killed, and soldiers MY AGE being killed..and evertime it hurts more than the last. Ofcourse there are REALLY good reasons for these wars you know..A Soldier gets supposedly kidnaped so they kill 3,000 civillians and send the country back 50 years oh and dont forget we will turn the cheek while a group plans to execute a strike and then after the fact play the "point the finger and fight"

Putting that power into someone that will never except Israel as a country will just fuel a conflagration and make a world war an inevitability.


i am from jordan and i of course feel like you when i flip on the news, especially if i'm on fox news and MR.Orielly comes up saying "were spreading democracy" or "oh Iran is an immdiate threat to the US and has to be 'wiped of the map'" yeah right iran is half the globe away from the US, and no your not spreading democracy, your spreding genocide, US soldiers killed in iraq probaly reached aorund 2500, while Iraqi civilian casualties have reached maybe 50k. and now iraq has an economy in shambles, bad outdated infrastructure, and yes the country is rolled back 30-40 years. same thing with afghanistan. i'm not saying "go ahead Iran, just make as many nuclear weapons as you want, and go on bombing every country int eh middle east" i'm just saying a whole lotta people are misinformed about the "threat" iran poses which is not much, even if they do get nuclear weapons, these "religious leaders" that say we fight to the death are all cowards and will run away to somewhere when war comes in, all of the leaders in the middle east are that way, except for jordan, this might be biased, i thinkk king abdullah 2nd is a good one, so was king hussein and so was king abdullah 1st, they were all very good, respectful, and loyal leaders, unlike many such as the ones in syria, egypt, saudi arabia, algiers, and many others right now. the media is really wrong and misinforming and baised and onesided in America and hypes up everything so that the public is pushed to go to war, it has always been this way in america since the end of the cold war and even before that. in the middle east and in europe, people have listened and have understood propaganda for centuries now, they know what to belie and what is propaganda, while in the US people are blinded by there constitution and bill of rights and all of that, which are magnificent documents, and those who wrote them of course really meant them, but really since the early 1900's many presidents and administrations have abused the rights of the american people and have delivered propaganda rather than wats really happening. you cna say freedom of speech is protected because you can still speak against the government, well please tell me what difference does it make when you speak against the governemnt and wat you say falls on deaf ears, and how can you speak the right things against or witht he government if you don't get but propaganda and misinformation so in the end you go with what the government wants or what the media says and you end up not speaking against the government! and anyhow freedom of speeck also means that your supposed to recieve true and not onesided information, which in america i just can't find, the only way i know the truth is because i am from the region and can understand what's really happening, but the average american doesn't even know where these things are happening, americans probably barely even heard or know of a coutnry called iraq or iran or syria or most of middle east countries until 9/11, hell many americans haven't got out of the states they're in, many don't even know what's in the outside world other than north america, when i first came here, i asked somebody "have you ever visited france?" for instance or do you want to visit france, and they say "what the hell is in france?" and that is misinformation and propaganda at work. hell i know many many people in jordan and the middle east and they can show me hell of a lotta countries on a map without the names of the countries on it, and they know hell of a lotta history of the region, when in the US many teens don't even know what watergate is, or vietnam!




posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 10:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by donk_316
Wow. You delusional... Seriously. Bush first attacks Afganistan based on OBL being there... THEN he jumps to IRAQ becuase his cronies showed the US public pictures of RVs from miles away and said "see??? WMD!! WMD!!" and then they destroyed Iraq.

That may not how you see it, being from texas and all, but thats how the REST of the world sees it.

Now you say "who cares about the rest of the world thinks about us, we are the USA!"

And that my narrow minded friend... is the problem with the world today.


Hey, rather than put words in my mouth, call me narrow-minded, or attempt to make my being a Texan an insult, just make it reeeal easy; show me an official reference to Bush vowing or calling for the destruction of an entire nation and all of its inhabitants. This should be easy for you.



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 11:33 PM
link   
donk,if you agree with Iran so much maybe you should turn to islam,buy a camel and move there.



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 12:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by crowpruitt
donk,if you agree with Iran so much maybe you should turn to islam,buy a camel and move there.


you my friend are a moron.good day.



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 12:24 AM
link   
i think you're pretty much in the minority with those views, even among the more leftist nations. kofi anan apparently is very dismayed with the current iranian administration. france, a big opponent of the iraq war, is very adamant that iran not get nukes

if you believe nejad's statements that iran only wants nuke power for peaceful energy purposes, then why not also believe his statements that the holocaust is a myth and that israel should be obliterated?

you seem to want every global situation to fit neatly into your preset and simplistic almost childish world view that bush/US/UK/west/capitalism = bad, and everything against that = good. life's not that simple my friend. it's all shades of grey. unfortunately there are so many bush haters out there who will oppose absolutely everything he says and does even though often it's something they'd usually support e.g., myers for the supreme court, guest worker program, job protection for american workers etc etc.



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 12:30 AM
link   
if bush or blair were to call for syria, north korea or iran to be wiped off the map there would be an outcry. likewise, if israel were to randomly lauch rockets into lebanon without warning there would be an outcry.

i'm not gonna turn this into a left/right issue because thank god, apart from some loony liberals (galloway and livingstone in the UK and dean and boxer and pelosi in the US), most mainstream politicians on the left (such as the clintons) have the sense to recognize that those who threaten the security of the west and israel are the real enemy.



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 03:24 AM
link   
Well hope u guys all know the president of iran is a terrorist. Does anyone recall the us embassy crises. Well, he was one of the hostage taker. There is a clear video snapshot of his face. If a psycho like this have a nuke, there's no tellin which enemy of the States will he give the nuke to.

I guess some of u may need to see a nuke to go off in the states in order to realize that he is a dangerous man.

Better to act than react.



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 03:29 AM
link   
O not to mention. Y would he not take the UN offer to make him a nuclear power plant that will be use for energy puposes. Y in the world would he reject this when his goal was to create nuclear energy.

Gee, I guess he has other motives.



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 03:49 AM
link   
I think Nuclear energy is the right of every nation with out any restrictions, as long as there is not proof that meaning real proof that nuclear weapons being developed I dont see the problem.
In fact I think if we were to call out for a resolution today, russia,china, and europe would not vote on such thing.
I think it's important to respect the non proliferation treaty that grants all the nations the right to "ENRICH URANIUM" for use on power plants.
By standing in a way of that treaty would mean braking the law.
As long as there is not proof of nukes who ever would want to do this would mean it's braking the law by violating iran's rights.
If there was evidence of nuclear weapons in progress that would be something else.
But there is no such thing to sustain that iran is developing nukes.
Enriching uranium is every nation's right and it does not prove it's building a nuclear weapon.
In fact if I recall the only time nuclear weapons were used it was done by the USA in Japan, the statistics show the bigest danger comes from the white house.
Droping a atomic bomb after the war was over, now thats what I call terrorism.

As for sanctions I don't think it will ever hapen.
Europe has already anounced that it wants to expand their economic relations with iran, china and russia has already expresed that they do not agrree with the policy of the white house regarding iran, no body will vote on it when the time will come.


[edit on 5-9-2006 by pepsi78]



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 06:23 AM
link   
I have to say that the response to this thread is, in general, living down to my expectations.

For the people who ask "why doesn't the op go and live in Iran?" - is this supposed to be a rational debate, or a slugfest? Is this the kind of debating tactic you learn on Fox News? George Carlin's right. The US educational system is poor because the owners of your country don't want well-informed citizens who can engage in critical thinking - they want people smart enough to be obedient workers, but not smart enough so they can "sit around the kitchen table and figure out that there's a big, red-white-and-blue **** being rammed up their *******s every day". And most of the posts here demonstrate the success of this strategy.

It seems that people never learn. I mean, Iraq was only three years and many, many lives ago, and the SAME STUNTS are being pulled: and you folks are just lapping it up. Saddam never had WMDs, there was never a real threat from him, and you are certainly not bringing democracy to that country. You're bringing anarchy and death. The situation is getting worse and the Iraqis are not ready to take the reins in such a way that US investment is going to be safe, which is what the whole thing was about anyway - the asset-stripping of an entire country. The British army - who were supposed to be dealing with the more peaceful areas of the country where their "softly softly" approach was intended to win hearts and minds" have just had to abandon one of their bases which was coming under constant mortar fire. On very short notice, they handed over to the Iraqi army and on even shorter notice the base was looted, and air conditioners from it were seen on sale in local street markets.

Yeah... real progress.

And now the same lies and exaggerations (Ahmedinejad never said half the stuff he's supposed to have said - it was all mistranslated by MEMRI, an Israeli think-tank that provides inflammatory propaganda to the Western world) are being pumped out and nobody remembers, nobody cares. Let's just all jump aboard the new war wagon and wave our little made-in-China flags and try to feel good about ourselves and whatever happens never, ever acknowledge that the US is the country that is truly messing up the rest of the world.



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 07:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
In fact if I recall the only time nuclear weapons were used it was done by the USA in Japan, the statistics show the bigest danger comes from the white house.
Droping a atomic bomb after the war was over, now thats what I call terrorism.


Pepsi,
could you exsplain what you mean by that statment?



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 07:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by RedGolem

Originally posted by pepsi78
In fact if I recall the only time nuclear weapons were used it was done by the USA in Japan, the statistics show the bigest danger comes from the white house.
Droping a atomic bomb after the war was over, now thats what I call terrorism.


Pepsi,
could you exsplain what you mean by that statment?

I just posted on the subject of the topic.
It means that a biger threat than any other nation would be the white house by statistics.
Since the only ones that truly used it in conflict would be united states.

The curent events are not even about nukes, it's about oil and influence, the nukes are just an virtual excuse, I'm saing a virtual excuse because there is no evidence of building nukes in iran, the only pretex is that iran is enriching uranium, but that is coverd by the nonploriferation treaty, any nation has the right to build nuclear powerplants and enrich uranium in the procces.
I'm not exactlya fan of the iranian president, but it's the right of his nation to enrich uranium as long as they like as long as they are building a nuclear power plant, as long as there is no solid proof I dont see what the problem is.



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 07:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by INc2006
"oh Iran is an immdiate threat to the US and has to be 'wiped of the map'"


yes Iran is a threat to the US. It's also a threat to many other nations. The leader of that country has said many times what his intent is and he has said this publically and LOUDLY. Wipe certain countries off the planet and attack others. That's his motto. And if he 'just' attacked Israel that would have implications for every nation on the planet. The leadership of Iran is a major world threat. The leader is a whack.

Oh .. and you are confused about something else. Our president isn't saying 'Iran has to be wiped off the map'. Nope. That's the IRANIAN president talking about other nations. You are projecting onto the USA the terrorist rhetoric spewing out of the Iranian leaders mouth.


yeah right iran is half the globe away from the US,

So what if it's half way around the world? The planet is really a small place. Things that Iran does effects America and every other nation on this planet. Just about anything that one country does effects others. The negative things Iran does definately effect terrorism around the world. This is a fact. If you don't understand that then you don't understand basic sociology or anything about the world you live in.


no your not spreading democracy, your spreding genocide,


Wrong again.

Iraqis just voted in their first free elections in 40 years. They just freely chose those leaders who they wish to represent them. This is democracy. It wasn't there before. Now it is. It took Germany and Japan many years after WWII to settle into a free and stable government. Iraq will be the same.

Oh ... and those guilty of genocide in Iraq are gone. Saddam and his thugs.
You are turning a blind eye to the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who died under his terrorist rule. You are turning a blind eye to the hundreds of thousands who died in wars his ego started .. wars with Kuwait and Iran. Tens of thousands left maimed and the thousands who were tortured in his rape rooms.... All this genocide is gone because of the spread of democracy. So your statement is backwards.


many americans haven't got out of the states they're in,

Wrong again. Many Americans do visit outside the United States. Those that can't afford to visit can see what other countries are like on cable tv. But that has nothing to do with anything at all.

(not that it's any of your business .. I have visited Canada, Switzerland, Germany, France, Italy, Liechtenstein, Yugolsavia, Serbia, Bosnia, Venezuela and Bolivia. I also lived in Japan for three years)


many don't even know what's in the outside world other than north america,


Bull. That's subjective and just anti-American propaganda and bigotry. There are some, of course, who are just street thugs and don't care. But the vast majority of Americans are well aware of other nations and other cultures. It is taught in schools and it is on tv all the time. Your statement is just bunk.


i know many many people in jordan and the middle east and they can show me hell of a lotta countries on a map without the names of the countries on it,


Oh? And do they name Israel by name? Or do they just say 'those lands west of Jordan?' What's the rate of people who can't read in the middle east?

BTW .. picking country lines on a map is fine ... but understanding sociology and the intercountry workings is important and if you, or your friends, think that Iran isn't a threat to America and world stability then all the map reading in the world won't change the fact that you 'just don't get it'. You accuse Americans of not knowing what is going on in the world outside of their own little country.. but from your statements it certainly looks like you shouldn't be throwing stones when you live in a glass house.



[edit on 9/5/2006 by FlyersFan]



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 07:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
In fact if I recall the only time nuclear weapons were used it was done by the USA in Japan, the statistics show the bigest danger comes from the white house.
Droping a atomic bomb after the war was over, now thats what I call terrorism.


No, the bomb wasn't dropped when the war was over. Dropping the bomb caused the war to end. It took dropping it twice to get the war to end.

The fact is that America was attacked. It wasn't a 'conflict' as you said. It was defensive war that America fought. We were attacked. By the time we had to drop the bomb, Japan said it wouldn't surrender unconditionally. Even when the officials surrendered many refused to comply.

I lived in Japan for three years. I visited Hiroshima for a few days. The museum was very interesting. The artifacts were chilling. But the fact remains that Japan brought the distruction on itself. It was warned. We warned Japan what we would do and when we would do it if they didn't unconditionally surrender. They still refused. The leaflets we dropped telling the people what was going on are still in the museum today. Anyone can go in and read them.

Hiroshima was very necessary. Don't even try to say that America is dangerous because we used a nuclear bomb to defend ourselves and to end a war. That's just plain wrong.

America has had nuclear weapons for 50 years. We have used them in a war situation twice .. a war we didn't cause ... a self defensive position. Would Iran go 50 years without dropping nukes all over the planet? Considering the threats that their whacked leader say it is more likely that they'd be using them all over the planet and that terrorists would be getting their hands on them ... blowing up London, Paris, Frankfurt, Seville, etc. etc.



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 08:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by deioces

Originally posted by crowpruitt
donk,if you agree with Iran so much maybe you should turn to islam,buy a camel and move there.


you my friend are a moron.good day.


We will not have any of this on this forum. It counts for both of you.



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 08:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFanyes Iran is a threat to the US. It's also a threat to many other nations. The leader of that country has said many times what his intent is and he has said this publically and LOUDLY. Wipe certain countries off the planet and attack others. That's his motto.


MEMRI, anyone?? I hear Rich23 mentioning that organisation almost every day. Did the Iranian president actually say those words, or was it an invention by MEMRI???



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 09:26 AM
link   



No, the bomb wasn't dropped when the war was over. Dropping the bomb caused the war to end. It took dropping it twice to get the war to end.

The bomb was droped after japan lost the war, think what you want but that is history, they decided to do a test on the japanies.


The fact is that America was attacked.

America alowed it's self to be atacked on pearl harbor, the white house was looking for a way to get in the war.
Clasified documents proved that pear harbore was delibretly unprotected, they knew, in fact thats how it works today, 911 etc.



By the time we had to drop the bomb, Japan said it wouldn't surrender unconditionally.

By the time it was droped, war was mostly over.


Hiroshima was very necessary.

yes necesary to mass murderer inocent civilans.


Don't even try to say that America is dangerous because we used a nuclear bomb to defend ourselves and to end a war. That's just plain wrong.

Do you know what chances japan had to cary out atacks on us soil at the time the bomb was droped?
You clearly dont know history.
Chances were 0%
A nuclear bomb for a naval port
I'm sorry I dont feel safe with all the nukes bush has
since he is a very unstable caracter, who knows, he already managed to start a civil war in iraq, just look at the before and after factor.
Before= sadam was killing civilians.
After= insurgents+coalition forces are killing civilians+destroing of inflastucture+torture+stealing oil so you can have nice oil prices so you can drive with your car and say, I live in the land of the free

I will get a good laugh when us europians vote against us policy
regarding iran
Europe will never vote for sanctions against iran, busines is more important with them than us policy.
Us policy will just bring us more terrorists




[edit on 5-9-2006 by pepsi78]

[edit on 5-9-2006 by pepsi78]



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by sbob
I think Iran has the right to produce uranium.

But that they are doing it for peaceful reasons is kind of a joke.

Iran is not beong honest.




I agree



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 11:40 AM
link   
I think that every country has the right to defend itself and that other countries who have nuclear arsenal in the first place should not pohibit the right of developing nuclear weapons to another country, If I was the President of Iran and after watching what the USA did to Iraq I will do the same thing.



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
Do you know what chances japan had to cary out atacks on us soil at the time the bomb was droped?
You clearly dont know history.
Chances were 0%
A nuclear bomb for a naval port
I'm sorry I dont feel safe with all the nukes bush has
since he is a very unstable caracter, who knows, he already managed to start a civil war in iraq, just look at the before and after factor.
Before= sadam was killing civilians.
After= insurgents+coalition forces are killing civilians+destroing of inflastucture+torture+stealing oil so you can have nice oil prices so you can drive with your car and say, I live in the land of the free

I will get a good laugh when us europians vote against us policy
regarding iran
Europe will never vote for sanctions against iran, busines is more important with them than us policy.
Us policy will just bring us more terrorists



I think it is you who need to review your history.

I'm not even going to address your remarks on Pearl Harbor.

Just consider a few things.

When the US invaded the island of Okinawa, Japanese civilians made suicide attacks on US forces. Those who couldn't make such attacks, committed suicide by jumping off of a cliff into the Pacific Ocean. Before they jumped they threw their children off of the cliff first.
It was estimated that the invasion of Japan would cost the Allies 1 million casualties and the Japanese at least 5 million. The atomic bombs proved to the Emperor of Japan that his people had lost the war. When he called for them to surrender he prevented those 5 million Japanese casualties.

An inciendiary attack on Tokyo created a firestorm that killed almost as many people as Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.

At the time of their surrender the Japanese were still in control of Manchuria and it's Chinese population. At the time of their surrender Japan was preparing to launch balloons carrying bacterialogical weapons at the US mainland. There were plans in progress to launch a plane from a submarine to contaminate the water supplies of several West Coast cities.

If President Bush is such an "unstable character", how's come Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and North Korea are not glass paved self-lighting parking lots? Immediately after 9-11 not too many US citizens would have complained if we had nuked someone.

Ok so I'll address your Pearl Harbor comments.
From what you posted I guess that any country except for the US has the right to attack any place that the US leaves undefended. I don't care if Roosevelt sent an engraved invitation to Japan inviting them to attack Pearl Harbor. They still chose to attack it and almost every place else in the Pacific. Face the facts. Japan saw that Europe was busy with the Germans and didn't have the resources to defend their interests in the East. Their attack was just a greedy land grab to expand their empire, nothing more. The US Navy was the only thing that could have possibly stood in their way, so they attacked Pearl Harbor to remove that threat.


Let Iran have it's nukes. If they mean what they say there won't be a problem. I'm betting that they don't. When they pop one off let them get what's coming to them. If I was Europe right now I'd reconsider my views. Their current missiles can reach Europe, they can't reach the US.




top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join