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.

 

If not for Iraq, would we be more eager to go to war with Iran?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 05:58 AM
link   
My question is this, If we had not gone to war in Iraq, would people be more 'pro' war with Iran?

Due to the extreme loss of life and the money burden attributed to the War on Iraq, I feel some people ( may even sway towards 'most' people ) are quite hesitant to proceed with any actions against Iran.

I feel if the war in Iraq never happened, going to war with current Iran would not be an issue.

Iran has publically threatened the USA, as well as Israel and probably many others. They have broken all the rules in regards to nuclear attainment.

Is what happened, and still happening in Iraq, clouding the judgement of many when it comes to what to do with Iran.

I am in no way supporting any wars, but I do feel Iran will be a most feared threat in the near future if something is not done.

How do most people feel?




posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 07:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Grailkeeper
Is what happened, and still happening in Iraq, clouding the judgement of many when it comes to what to do with Iran.


Since the invasion of Iraq I am very sceptic towards every new governmental announcement. We cannot naively rely on our governments like we used during the cold war, nor can we trust our intelligence agencies.

Thousands of innocent people have died in Iraq the past three/four years for motives that turned out to be false e.g. Saddam-Terror connection and the WMDs to call a few.



While countries such as Palestine, Lebanon, Darfur and many others are not relevant. Simply because we don't care about ''bringing democracy to the world''. I don't support any pre-emptive attacks on Iran, you shouldn't either. Unlike Nazi-Germany, Iran is, and hasn't been, an aggressive factor for many decades.

Additionally, words have been intentionally been misinterpreted: ''Ahmadinejad says that Israel should be wiped off the map''.
Since when are words lethal? If the leftists southern American countries of Bolivia, Venezuela and others announce to start a joint nuclear program, are we gonna take them down in retalition for Chavez's rhetoric towards Bush?

As long as no clear indications/ evidence can be shown that Iran is preparing to fire nuclear warheads into Israel, I won't support a war. Besides, I'm sure they wont. In contrast to some of our, primarily, American members, who are totally indoctrinated by Israeli propaganda, there's no indication that they have such intentions.

After the fall of the Soviet Union, many nuclear warheads have ''gone missing''. Don't you that if Iran actually wants to nuke Israel, they wouldn't have already bought Soviet warheads? Much easier and faster

Some seem to forget that Ahmadinejad is just a puppet operated by the Ayatollahs. The Ayatollahs who have been in command for many decades now. Why would they suddenly change tactics and take the risk of losing their power? Because they haven't such intentions. They want to strengthen the political position of Iran. America doesn't want Iran to become a dominant nation, nor does Israel. Solution: just bomb them away.

Those who support such a war, and we have a few here on the forums, are in no perspective better, or different from, the extremists and radical zealots who share the dogma of wiping Western society of the map.




[edit on 29-1-2007 by Mdv2]



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 07:24 AM
link   
Makes you wonder hey?

Apparently, the USA made so many catastrophic intellegence blunders, you just cant take them for their word 'this time'

Fool me once.... fool you........ you cant fool me again!

Had we never of gone into Iraq, would Iran feel the need for nuclear weapons? I mean if my neighbour was invaded and occupied, then the occupied looked at me, hell id be doing everything possible to ensure i was able to defend myself.
Yet, when i prepare my defenses,its looked upon as an offensive stance..

Iraq HATES Iran, and its clear Iraq had no desire to attack the USA. Hell, the country was starting to develoup and gain back its soildarity.

So If IRAN had of become a major threat, and worthy of attack, Iraq would of HELPED US!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Can you imagine Becoming allies again with Iraq? removing sanctions, allowing prosperity and industry to thrive in Iraq?...

Hell, we could of helped them become a major player in the ME, being they wernt alligned with Alqaeda, and wernt pursuing wmd's.

Fathom that, helping a nation rebuild itself and its reputation to being a pivitol member of soceity through motives both beneficial to each other?

.... nah... bush though it better to just bomb them.. disregard talks.. and murder alot of innocent people.



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 07:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Grailkeeper

They have broken all the rules in regards to nuclear attainment.



Really? And which rules didn't Israel break? Or India, or Pakistan.

In fact - which rules are you referring to?



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 07:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by neformore

Originally posted by Grailkeeper

They have broken all the rules in regards to nuclear attainment.



Really? And which rules didn't Israel break? Or India, or Pakistan.

In fact - which rules are you referring to?


He probably means the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which Israel, Pakistan and India did not sign. However, South Korea, Taiwain and Saudi Arabia did. Additionally, SA financed the Pakistani nuclear program and now has or will get its own 'made in Pakistan' nuclear arsenal.

...


Iran is a signatory state of the NPT and has recently (as of 2006) resumed development of a uranium enrichment program. This enrichment program is a step towards a civilian nuclear energy program, which is allowed under the terms of the NPT. However, the United States and several members of the European Union accuse Iran of using this program to help covertly develop nuclear weapons, in violation of the NPT.

Source


Guess why oil rich Saudi Arabia can have nuclear missiles.


[edit on 29-1-2007 by Mdv2]



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 08:00 AM
link   
It seems the NPT relies on nothing but GOOD faith.
Your ALLOWED to build the infrasctucture that CAN build WMD's.... but you signed a piece of paper which says you wont use it for that purpose.

Good faith has pretty much all but disappeared on the USA's side of the fence, so why are we badgering them to stick to the mix?

Being we dont have any EVIDENCE of them breaking the rules as of yet.



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mdv2




He probably means the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which Israel, Pakistan and India did not sign. However, South Korea, Taiwain and Saudi Arabia did. Additionally, SA financed the Pakistani nuclear program and now has or will get its own 'made in Pakistan' nuclear arsenal.

...


Iran is a signatory state of the NPT and has recently (as of 2006) resumed development of a uranium enrichment program. This enrichment program is a step towards a civilian nuclear energy program, which is allowed under the terms of the NPT. However, the United States and several members of the European Union accuse Iran of using this program to help covertly develop nuclear weapons, in violation of the NPT.

Source


Guess why oil rich Saudi Arabia can have nuclear missiles.


[edit on 29-1-2007 by Mdv2]


Yes, Mdv2, thats what I was referring to .

Thanks for posting the clarification.

Iraq was partially invaded based on WMD, albeit false at this time. Would Iran not carry a more weight as in retaining the same criteria, but with more credence, as they openly state they are chasing the Nuke Train.

I've read that it would take many years for Iran to acheive Nuclear weapons based on their current operations, is this something that can be 'sat on' until something happens.

I am not saying they will do anything, but it certainly holds more of drastic outcome than that of Iraq having WMDs.



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 01:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Grailkeeper

Yes, Mdv2, thats what I was referring to .

Thanks for posting the clarification.



OK - so - another quesion.

Whats worse, a country signed up to the NPT developing nuclear technology, or countries that aren't signed to the NPT developing it.

Take a look at these, taken from Wikipedia here ; Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty



Article I:[5] Each nuclear-weapons state (NWS) undertakes not to transfer, to any recipient, nuclear weapons, or other nuclear explosive devices, and not to assist any non-nuclear weapon state to manufacture or acquire such weapons or devices.


OK. so the US and the UK didn't comply with this when assisting Israel to develop its nuclear weapons



Article II: Each non-NWS party undertakes not to receive, from any source, nuclear weapons, or other nuclear explosive devices; not to manufacture or acquire such weapons or devices; and not to receive any assistance in their manufacture.


Well there goes Israel again. And Pakistan. I beleive India's programme was indigenous, as was South Africa's initially.



Article III: Each non-NWS party undertakes to conclude an agreement with the IAEA for the application of its safeguards to all nuclear material in all of the state's peaceful nuclear activities and to prevent diversion of such material to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.


Iran is a signatory to this, and whilst rumours persist there is no hard evidence as yet that they have broken the terms of it.



Article VI. The states undertake to negotiate toward general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.


Looks like this ones not getting complied with at all, bu any of them.



Article X. Establishes the right to withdraw from the Treaty giving 3 months' notice. It also establishes the duration of the Treaty (25 years before 1995 Extension Initiative).


Well theres a doozy - its an opt out clause.

Heres some other interesting facts.

NK dropped out of the treaty in 2003, following the correct procedure.

Irans current nuclear policy is within the bounds of the NPT treaty.

India, Pakistan and Israel are free to do whatever they choose with their weapons and technology - why? Because they have never ratified the treaty. So a piece of paper is what stands between being "right" and being "wrong", and a nation can be persecuted and threatened with military action because of it. So on those shaky moral grounds, Israel should be in really deep doo-doo right now - why isn't it?

The whole premise of the "problem" with Iran is based on a belief that they might be doing something wrong. Where have you heard that one before?

And finally - quote wise - something I didn't know, taken from the same Wiki article I quoted above;



Ayatollah Ali Khamenei issued a fatwa forbidding the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons on August 9, 2005. The full text of the fatwa was released in an official statement at the meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna.[21]


Now whether or not that will ever stand is an unknown, but in Iran Khamenei is the man - you can forget the president. What he says goes. Where does that leave this argument?



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 08:19 PM
link   
I think if it were not for Iraq, Bush and Co. would already have troops in Iran. The thing is this bad boy right here The US is in a lot of debt. Every single day, the US is in more debt by almost 1.5 billion. Now, I am only 14, and DO NOT get why the USA and Russia and other countries are "allowed" to have nuclear weapons, but Iran is not? This just doesn't make sense.

[edit on 30-1-2007 by Qwazzy]



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by neformore
And finally - quote wise - something I didn't know, taken from the same Wiki article I quoted above;



Ayatollah Ali Khamenei issued a fatwa forbidding the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons on August 9, 2005. The full text of the fatwa was released in an official statement at the meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna.[21]


Now whether or not that will ever stand is an unknown, but in Iran Khamenei is the man - you can forget the president. What he says goes. Where does that leave this argument?


But as I understand it, does not radical Islam subscribe to the notion that it is ok to lie, cheat and deceive thy enemy, by any means necessary to achieve victory? In other words, how closely do you think that Iran is going to adhere to that Fatwa behind closed doors when they've got carrier battle groups parked on their doorstep?



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 01:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
In other words, how closely do you think that Iran is going to adhere to that Fatwa behind closed doors when they've got carrier battle groups parked on their doorstep?


Good question.

Lets face it, having two US carrier battle groups off the coast of your country, with a hostile administration behind them who have just invaded your neighbour on the premise of a pack of lies, is enough incentive for anyone to look to ways to defend themselves, isn't it?

The situation is being engineered by the Bush administration. If you can't see that you are blind. They are doing exactly what they did with Iraq. They have demonised the countries president, linked the whole place to terrorism and told the world Iran is about to start producing nuclear weapons. Now there is a build up of forces in the area.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice.....


[edit on 31/0107/07 by neformore]



posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 03:12 PM
link   
Who says invading iraq wasn't just another step towards attacking iran?
We now have troops in afghanistan and iraq making iran the cream of the oreo cookie. Air bases in both countries and ships in the gulf. These things make attacking iran EASIER. Bush obviously , thank god, doesn't give a rat's a$$ about opinion pollls so... All that we're stretched thin stuff is junk and is parroted by people looking for an excuse to whine.



posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mdv2

While countries such as Palestine, Lebanon, Darfur and many others are not relevant. Simply because we don't care about ''bringing democracy to the world''. I don't support any pre-emptive attacks on Iran, you shouldn't either. Unlike Nazi-Germany, Iran is, and hasn't been, an aggressive factor for many decades.


[edit on 29-1-2007 by Mdv2]


Nah, iran just openly supports international terrorism... No threat at all. As for lebanon and palestine we've have supported both people for a long time now. Darfur is just another example of muslims intolerence and the un and africas incompetence.



posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Makes you wonder hey?



Had we never of gone into Iraq, would Iran feel the need for nuclear weapons? I mean if my neighbour was invaded and occupied, then the occupied looked at me, hell id be doing everything possible to ensure i was able to defend myself.
Yet, when i prepare my defenses,its looked upon as an offensive stance..




Irans nuke program is over 20 years old. We invaded iraq in 2003. You do the math. Don't defend their nuke program as a response to the invasion of iraq.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join