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.

 

Is The War With Iran Now Starting?

page: 5
2
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 11:59 AM
link   
There is only one absolute and that would be numbers and Mathematics, everything else I would agree can be twisted on this earth and in our minds.



[edit on 18-1-2007 by Realtruth]




posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043

but now it has reached a critical point
BS, CIA and IEAI are saying that Iran are 10 years away from nukes. The immediate threat IS BS, just as Iraq's WMD were! Why in hell it is so hard to understand?


Yes but the propaganda machine have most American believing already that Iran is going to nuke poor Israel and our sons and daughters has to give their lives helping the poor lonely country.

Plus many even think that Iran is going to nuke US.

What can I say we have a nation where people are so hook on the propaganda that they has stop thinking for themselves.

[edit on 17-1-2007 by marg6043]


Of course...isn't that really how people like Bill & Hillary, George Bush, Obam and the rest even get considered for high office? We are practically having the primary elections dictated to us on the nightly news for crying out loud.



posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 02:36 PM
link   
Okay...so here goes.....You supply a link to an article which tries to indicate that Ahmedinejad is merely misunderstood...or purposely manipulated. However he says in his speech "Our dear Imam said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine. Is it possible to create a new front in the heart of an old front. This would be a defeat and whoever accepts the legitimacy of this regime [Israel] has in fact, signed the defeat of the Islamic world."

There is no way that Israel will ever be anything less than the "occupying regime" to the Palestinians and large sections of the Islamic world. In that sense, then, the only solution to the Iranian leader, is the elimination of Israel.


Originally posted by Regenmacher
The idea of Iran invading and taking over a country is ridculous considering most their weapons are old russian crap and they haven't done anything of the sort for centuries.

It's also best to question all propaganda designed to foment hate that builds the military-industrial complex and destroys more Earth.... before becoming a stooge of it:
Does Iran's President Want Israel Wiped Off The Map - Does He Deny The Holocaust?

So who currently is more apt to bomb a country's infratructure, invade it, kill off its leaders and set up a puppet regime in order to benefit itself and make some quick profits?

[edit on 18-1-2007 by Regenmacher]



posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Luxifero



Our mission has a limited objective--to open the supply routes, to get the food moving, and to prepare the way for a U.N. peace-keeping force to keep it moving. This operation is not open-ended. We will not stay longer than is absolutely necessary.


Let's break this apart.

to open the supply routes, to get the food moving


I included the above quotations for a purpose...leading to the following SOT.


Originally posted by Luxifero
From September-October the region was already on it's way to recovery.


Originally posted by Luxifero
Success was well under it's way before the U.S decided to intervene…


Stop right here…it was not the US that intervened it was the UN. The country was not on a road to recovery…period.

Hence this little problem with resolutions you may encounter.


Originally posted by Luxifero
Exactly what constitutes a U.N peace-keeping force?


In this instance....the list of 28 nations that chose to become involved. The material links I have already provided will answer to your “question".

Albeit, given your premise...addressing the 28 nations' issues and the UN resolutions surround this time....may prove fairly problematic for your position...



As I stated in the post you are referencing…pointing the finger at the US does not and can not justify Iran’s actions. Iran’s actions are not that of a peace seeking nation and my response in the previous post made just this point.


Ergo...I am still clear on my point…and of course, stand by it.


Originally posted by Luxifero
Iran is not a peace keeping nation nor does it acclaim to be.


"peacekeeping" is a term as is "peaceful" is another…they are not necessarily interchangable....

Ipso...to my point...a peace seeking nation does not behave as Iran.

So when Iran chronically claims to be a peaceful nation, seeking peaceful technologies, only pursuing peace... I will ignore their intentions and recognize them for what they are…of course...until proven otherwise.

The rest of your post is truly unfactuated bunk…or prove it otherwise.

Not withstanding, I have addressed your "molecule" of proof....

Mg



posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by graphicsman1977
There is no way that Israel will ever be anything less than the "occupying regime" to the Palestinians and large sections of the Islamic world. In that sense, then, the only solution to the Iranian leader, is the elimination of Israel.


Israel as 200-300 nukes, so you think his plan is to attack Israel and turn Iran into a radioactive wasteland for a imagined Imam to lord over? Stalin was considered nuts too, lucky for us we didn't pre-emptively nuke him based on our crystal ball visions and his threats.

I am more apt to believe Iranians love there children too, before thinking they are led by a Persian suicide cult that wants to test the theory of M.A.D., and that same belief has kept us from from turning the planet surface into slag.





[edit on 18-1-2007 by Regenmacher]



posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Regenmacher


I am more apt to believe Iranians love there children too, before thinking they are led by a Persian suicide cult that wants to test the theory of of M.A.D., and that same belief has kept us from from turning the planet surface into slag.




Regenmacher.
That is a very good statement, thanks for making it. As to the suicide cult I can not completely discount that possibility. I can not point to occurrences of Iranian nationals making suicide bombings but Iran has been supporting Hezbolah which has made suicide bombings. That in itself could discount the MAD ideology which helped keep the planet surface from turning into slag last century. There have also been several attempts of al-quati attempting to obtain radioactive material.
So all that being said, I do hope people in all parts of the globe will find a few moments to read your post.



posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by RedGolem
As to the suicide cult I can not completely discount that possibility.


Getting some poor fools to blow themselves up or die for Exxon is one thing, launching a nuke on Israel to see if 100x more nukes come back ...or launching a nuke on Tehran to see chemical warheads come back, or to see if China or Russia will also launch nukes is another.

Maybe we should look at Persian history to see how many times they have started a war?



[edit on 18-1-2007 by Regenmacher]



posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Regenmacher


Maybe we should look at Persian history to see how many times they have started a war?




I will not claim to be any sort of historian but the history of who starts the wars was not at question. It was that there has been a history of getting people to drive a car filled with explosives into a market or a building and blowing up who ever is there. It would probably only take a few people in the loop to replace the explosives with a WMD and the person doing the driving would not even half to know. So I guess it would come down to who is in the loop and what will they do.



posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by RedGolem
So I guess it would come down to who is in the loop and what will they do.


I don't see the fanatical kook threat as a reason for a pre-emptive attack, cause it's bound to bite us right back in the ass. I rather wait to cross that dirty nuke kook bridge when or if it ever gets here. When we actually tighten border security rather than having it look like a big joke, then I am more apt to believe in this kook with nuke theory too.

So your thinking the reason for an Iranian war is about backpack nukes, while Russian and medical grade radioactive elements flow freely on the black market?



posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 08:46 PM
link   
Regenmacher, I totally agree.



I don't see the fanatical kook threat as a reason for a pre-emptive attack, cause it's bound to bite us right back in the ass. I rather wait to cross that dirty nuke kook bridge when or if it ever gets here.

Exactly. The neo-cons should stop living in a world of fear. First, Iran is 10 years away from a FIRST nuke. Second, it would takes AT LEAST another 3/5 years to be able to mount it on a missile. Third, it would take AT LEAST another 5/10 years to reduce it to a backpack. So there, at bare minimum, they will only be able to bring a nuke in Israël in 20 years. What a threat!


When we actually tighten border security rather than having it look like a big joke, then I am more apt to believe in this kook with nuke theory too.

Exactly. When the president protect the illegal aliens who are smuggling drugs across the border because the CIA is making money on it or they accept the free flow of illegal aliens because it helps to bring down the US and make the North American Union, HOW THE HELL is it supposed to protect the country from any created/real threat?

And if neo-cons would have been in power during the end of world war 2, they would have pre-emptively nuked Russia? You don't commit a genocide because you're driven by your IRRATIONALS FEARS.



posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo
War against imperialism, by protecting Lebanon from Israël and US influence.


Give it a rest...


Originally posted by Vitchilo
So if we are to talk about Afghanistan, the groups supported by each country, we won't end. The US is as guilty of crap in Afghanistan as Iran,

More of the same…Iran is accountable and should be held accountable for their actions…my original point.


Originally posted by Vitchilo
Iran is killing kurds in northern Iraq with Turkey and you say they support the Kurdistan party in Turkey? How that works?


This is common knowledge…and it is the workers party…look it up for once.


Originally posted by Vitchilo
Well they are fighting foreign influence, because you know what happens when the US take over your country when your in the Middle-east, you're screwed, your under a dictatorship.


Like Egypt? Saudi Arabia? Lebanon? Yemen? UAE? Bahrain? etc…c’mon.

mg



posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Regenmacher

I don't see the fanatical kook threat as a reason for a pre-emptive attack, cause it's bound to bite us right back in the ass. I rather wait to cross that dirty nuke kook bridge when or if it ever gets here.

So your thinking the reason for an Iranian war is about backpack nukes, while Russian and medical grade radioactive elements flow freely on the black market?



I would not suggest a pre emptive attack either. It is not a comforting thought but I crossing that bridge when you get to it is what I think has to happen with that. As to the back pack nukes I think should that ever happen it could very well be the black market radioactive elements that get to people who want to use them as a weapon.



posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo
I don't see the fanatical kook threat as a reason for a pre-emptive attack, cause it's bound to bite us right back in the ass. I rather wait to cross that dirty nuke kook bridge when or if it ever gets here.
Exactly. The neo-cons should stop living in a world of fear. First, Iran is 10 years away from a FIRST nuke. Second, it would takes AT LEAST another 3/5 years to be able to mount it on a missile. Third, it would take AT LEAST another 5/10 years to reduce it to a backpack. So there, at bare minimum, they will only be able to bring a nuke in Israël in 20 years. What a threat!


Wow, your intelligence must be better than even the UN's as they can not say for sure if Iran's nuclear program is entirely peaceful and other intelligence agencies have uncovered Iran's purchase of warhead designs and atomic info from Dr Khan aka "father of the Islamic bomb".

The mere fact that we don't exactly know the extent of Iran's nuclear abilities or intentions given their previous behavior should be cause for concern at the very least. Ignorance is not knowledge, and right now we do not have enough info on Iran's nuclear program to satisfy the West's doubt of Iranian intentions. Being naive and trusting the word of a regime that has been secretive in the past in the nuclear age is truly a recipe for worse events.

Edit to fix quote

[edit on 18-1-2007 by pavil]

[edit on 18-1-2007 by pavil]



posted on Jan, 19 2007 @ 01:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by pavil
Being naive and trusting the word of a regime that has been secretive in the past in the nuclear age is truly a recipe for worse events.


So far, the pre-emptive attack Iraq plan has given the American people 3000+ dead soldiers, 47,000+ wounded, $1.2 trillion of war debt, oil up over 200%, a collapsing dollar, and Iraq on verge of civil war. The excuse was that Saddam had WMD's too, so maybe you should tell us how being fooled and abused by your own people is not niave.

By and large the world reacts to what actually happens, not fantasized what ifs, which makes the difference between a paranoid animal and a civilized human being.



[edit on 19-1-2007 by Regenmacher]



posted on Jan, 19 2007 @ 03:05 AM
link   
Folks

Here's a simple analysis.

You've got 30+ hard nuclear targets in Iran right now.

You've got your relationship with Israel to maintain and uphold.

You've got an adversarial "force" in the "background" manipulating mankind like a puppet.

You've got violent crime, alien abduction, continuing to become more frequent throughout the world.

You've got TWO Carrier Battle Groups steaming for the Gulf right now. That means TWO Carriers, over 160 Combat Aircraft, at LEAST FOUR Nuclear Submarines cabable of wielding enough explosive power to level a Nation.

With the 30+ Nuke Targets, and TWO Carrier Battle Groups involved... you've got Naval Special Warfare (NSW) guys onboard as well (SEALs).



World War III? We're ramping up by more than 20,000 troops, and we're saying we've got to "contain" Iraq... by... "containing" Iran?

I think if everybody just went home... dinner would be good with your OWN families. No?

YES. We are on the verge. YES, Iran IS going to nuke Israel, given the opportunity.

I say let em. It's just a plot of land. Evacuate ALL of Israel. Disperse them around the Globe TEMPORARILY and ON A TIMELINE. The Jewish People have been cast around the Globe since day one. I say just LEAVE THEM ALONE. That's ALL they've asked the entire time.

THEN...

After Ahmadinijad decides (after having his puppet strings pulled by the Ayatollah, whose strings were, in turn, pulled by the "illuminati", whose strings were, in turn, pulled by the "ranch management", whose strings may very well have been pulled by Lucifer himself...) to PRESS THE BUTTON... And Iran has created a MESS for themselves (considering WIND)... then we erase them from the map.

OR

Forgive them, as it states in the Bible we will do... that we will all forgive each other and embrace, as "brothers".

Yeah...

We're headed straight for the S***, Folks. I wouldn't worry so much about "escaping" as I would making your peace with God... centering your spirituallity... unlocking the "door to emotion" which is the "network of the cosmos" that we've been conditioned so effectively to IGNORE and NOT SHOW...

We live in interesting times.



posted on Jan, 19 2007 @ 03:15 AM
link   
The US has always been in by proxy war with Iran except for the Navy engagement in the late 80s during the Iran Iraq war. But we know that one we cannot "Wage" war with Iran. Invading Iran is simply not an option, its not Iraq. Only military option is a airstrike to only realisitcally delay Iran nuclear program. But Iran knows that and has been playing the AMERICAN ZONISTS WANT TO KILL US ALL card for the last 30 years so any American action will do more harm than good. As it would incite the Iranian masses, I'm sure Hezbollah would then strike Israel and if the oppertunity looks good maybe Hamas will go on the offensive as well but it lacks the capabilities of Hezbollah. So no we will not wage war with Iran. Because doing so is what the Iranians want.



posted on Jan, 19 2007 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Regenmacher

So far, the pre-emptive attack Iraq plan has given the American people 3000+ dead soldiers, 47,000+ wounded, $1.2 trillion of war debt, oil up over 200%, a collapsing dollar, and Iraq on verge of civil war. The excuse was that Saddam had WMD's too, so maybe you should tell us how being fooled and abused by your own people is not niave.

By and large the world reacts to what actually happens, not fantasized what ifs, which makes the difference between a paranoid animal and a civilized human being.


The Saddam regime was in violation of UN resolutions and had been given ample time to comply. They chose not to comply fully with the resolutions. They were, by almost all accounts, not nice people and had started two wars in the region with it's neighbors as well as persecuting a majority of it's own population. That actually happened you know. Don't make it sound like we pick on some poor defenseless old women for no apparent reason. History will judge these actions in the future, we will see if they stand up.



posted on Jan, 19 2007 @ 03:53 PM
link   
just because he wasn't nice and a bully to boot doesn't give us the right to attack him unprovoked.



posted on Jan, 19 2007 @ 03:54 PM
link   


The Saddam regime was in violation of UN resolutions and had been given ample time to comply. They chose not to comply fully with the resolutions.

So then you should invade Israël who violate 10s UN resolutions every year.


They were, by almost all accounts, not nice people and had started two wars in the region with it's neighbors as well as persecuting a majority of it's own population.

Started two wars. 1 against Iran: the US asked them to do so. Kuweit, well, you have to payback the money you asked from other countries, so let's invade Koweit and take their oil to payback.


That actually happened you know. Don't make it sound like we pick on some poor defenseless old women for no apparent reason.

For no apparent reason? I agree. For oil, for geopolitical strategy and to maintain the supremacy of the US dollar.

And if the US government would care for humanity, they wouldn't have supported this retard for over 20 years, nor others dictatorships, would lift sanctions on Cuba and go after a lot of africans dictatorships. Stop being a hypocrit.

[edit on 19-1-2007 by Vitchilo]



posted on Jan, 19 2007 @ 04:01 PM
link   
The USA is just a "Red Herring". It is the world cartel that we have to be aware of. The people in control could care less what happens to the US dollar, people in the USA or anything else.

It's all about controlling the masses.


They want you to pick a side that is how they remain powerful and in control.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join