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.

 

The USA seeking regional allies against Iran.

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 12:56 AM
link   

The question of Azerbaijan rendering assistance to the USA in its military campaign against Iran will be soon discussed in Washington, Armenian political analyst, expert Levon Melik-Shahnazaryan announced at a news conference in Yerevan on March 6. According to him, in late March a meeting of Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Elmar Mamedyarov and US State Secretary Condoleezza Rice, during which the USA will try to gain Azerbaijan’s support in its campaign against Iran.




Iran recognizes that if Baku is captured, the USA will not run the risk of striking the oil city. However, Iran is ready to strike Georgia as well.


Georgia?.... If we drag Georgia and so forth into this, I think it will enevitably lead to Russia taking the opportunity and striking grozny/georgia.

Have we begun seeking out assets to claim to the world striking iran is a 'co-ordinated, multi-national' event?

Or is it like the Iraq war, where the countries that joined were duped into accepting handouts, economic benefits of trade incentives to follow us?



for Azerbaijan’s sake, but at the expense of giving Iranian territories to it


Would you be willing to follow the US into another illegial war, knowing they will win militarily, thus having nothing to answer for? especially if you end up with more realestate?

Exactly what part of this, is meant to show Iran we are seeking diplomatic answers?

Link




posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 01:02 AM
link   
I dont know... Iran might ought to swallow its pride and announce it will not pursue any nuclear teachnology and try again later. It looks like bush is seriously winding up to take a swing at them.



posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 01:05 AM
link   
Im keen to know exactly what the ''campaign against Iran'' is....
Im sure we'll all know once breaking news starts flashing up all over the TV....

Wernt we dedicated to a diplomatic answer?



[edit on 12-3-2007 by Agit8dChop]



posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 01:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Im keen to know exactly what the ''campaign against Iran'' is....
Im sure we'll all know once breaking news starts flashing up all over the TV....

Wernt we dedicated to a diplomatic answer?



[edit on 12-3-2007 by Agit8dChop]


I was hoping for one because a war with Iran will but a strain on our relations with russia and china.



posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 01:17 AM
link   
Link


Israel should pursue a strategy of "open nuclear deterrence" towards Iran if international attempts to curtail Teheran's nuclear ambitions fail, a London think tank argues in a report to be released Monday.

Openly declaring its nuclear weapons stockpile and laying out the conditions of their use in the event of an Iranian attack is an option worth considering, a report published by the Royal Institute for International Affairs (Chatham House) stated, "if it is conceded that diplomatic efforts are doomed to fail, yet the price of war is too high."



I know this is just a suggestion, but in my mind this is how governmnets plays the world crowd.
Throw something out there, gauge the reaction, then implement if the throw backs look minimal.

open nuclear deterance?

So let me get this straight........... we (israel) lay down the law, that if we are attacked, we have our nuclear weapons open to us to use.

because

If we (israel) feel you are building weapons capable of hitting us we will attack you.

there fore,

If you do not give up your nuclear desires, and attack us after we blow your structures to bits, we will use our 'illegitimate' nuclear aresenal to destroy you.

..... why does this feel like more than just a suggestion?

Xphiles, a diplomatic solution would be ideal, frankly I think its very unlikely, Iran has a right to build a nuclear deterrant. They do not have the right to build a offensive weapon but,

And its up to the west to determin what there weapons are...

Iran have the right to research, Israel have the right to defend itself.
Who decides whoms rights are worthy of substance?
Ultimately... its the media.

The Media arent coming out showing Israel as it truley is, but they are coming out showing Iran to be this haneous terrorist state, which they may very well be.

I think had we not of gone into Iraq as we did, this Iran issue wouldnt of been anywhere near as explosive, and potentially world affecting as it is going to be.

How have we gotten ourselves into such a mess, in 6yrs?



posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 02:29 AM
link   
Geeee....

a regional cold war with two nations with their finger on a nuclear trigger

or

a war which may explode to encompass far more than the US, UK, Israel, and Iran.

These options suck...



posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 03:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by XphilesPhan
Geeee....

a regional cold war with two nations with their finger on a nuclear trigger

or

a war which may explode to encompass far more than the US, UK, Israel, and Iran.

These options suck...




atleast on the cold war we got MAD where both sides know that if they use nukes its an almost def end to their countries and civilization

so option one sounds good



posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 08:42 PM
link   
Isreal needs to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities. If they don't then they run the risk of being bombed themselves. In my opinion Isreal bombing Iran is the lesser of two evils.



posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by WhOo0
Isreal needs to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities. If they don't then they run the risk of being bombed themselves. In my opinion Isreal bombing Iran is the lesser of two evils.


they do that and they risk having Iran bomb the bleep out of them with their long range missiles and in sense Iran would be the right as it would a retaliation strike



posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by WhOo0
Isreal needs to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities. If they don't then they run the risk of being bombed themselves. In my opinion Isreal bombing Iran is the lesser of two evils.


In my opinion taking the RISK of Iran carrying out a suicidal, surprise attack is the lesser of two evils.

They know if they do such a thing, they will be obliterated immediately.
This is a good incentive NOT to do it.

In my opinion, bombing iran ensures destruction on a mass scale across multiple countries.
Giving Iran the opporuntiy to prove their intentions has the chance of NO ONE being bombed, or Israel and Iran both being bombed.

1 way you ensure death and destruction.
The other way, you have a chance at NO DEATH and destruction, but you also have the CHANCE at death and destrcution.
Wouldnt you rather take the road that has a CHANCE for peace?



posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by WhOo0
Isreal needs to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities. If they don't then they run the risk of being bombed themselves. In my opinion Isreal bombing Iran is the lesser of two evils.


Yeah totally dude. Why live with a risk when you can turn it to reality!


I mean why wait you know something silly like not getting bombed could actually happen and all will miss the fun! This is the time lets assure that Iran bombs Israel once and for all. I mean aren't we all tired of this waiting?


Ok if Israel attaks Iran, for sure Iran will attack Israel.
if Israel doesn't attacke iran, maybe Iran will attack Israel.

Which one is better again?



posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
In my opinion taking the RISK of Iran carrying out a suicidal, surprise attack is the lesser of two evils.

They know if they do such a thing, they will be obliterated immediately.
This is a good incentive NOT to do it.

In my opinion, bombing iran ensures destruction on a mass scale across multiple countries.
Giving Iran the opporuntiy to prove their intentions has the chance of NO ONE being bombed, or Israel and Iran both being bombed.

1 way you ensure death and destruction.
The other way, you have a chance at NO DEATH and destruction, but you also have the CHANCE at death and destrcution.
Wouldnt you rather take the road that has a CHANCE for peace?


Many countries in Europe do not like Isreal, and even more in the Middle East. If Isreal were attacked by anything other then a nuke the only country that would aid it is the US. In addition, as unstable as the Middle East, whos to say that a group of people won't jack one. It's not so much that i'm defending Isreal, its more, lets not allow any more countries get nukes. It increases the chance of one getting into the wrong hands.



posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 09:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by WhOo0

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
In my opinion taking the RISK of Iran carrying out a suicidal, surprise attack is the lesser of two evils.

They know if they do such a thing, they will be obliterated immediately.
This is a good incentive NOT to do it.

In my opinion, bombing iran ensures destruction on a mass scale across multiple countries.
Giving Iran the opporuntiy to prove their intentions has the chance of NO ONE being bombed, or Israel and Iran both being bombed.

1 way you ensure death and destruction.
The other way, you have a chance at NO DEATH and destruction, but you also have the CHANCE at death and destrcution.
Wouldnt you rather take the road that has a CHANCE for peace?


Many countries in Europe do not like Isreal, and even more in the Middle East. If Isreal were attacked by anything other then a nuke the only country that would aid it is the US. In addition, as unstable as the Middle East, whos to say that a group of people won't jack one. It's not so much that i'm defending Isreal, its more, lets not allow any more countries get nukes. It increases the chance of one getting into the wrong hands.



Yeah so lets go and bomb the country that potentially has nukes inorder to stop them potentially attacking us? yeah Israel as you say is not that popular so surely an image boosting headline announcing that Israel has used pre emptive nukes on Iran will rise that popularity!

I mean right now there is a chance for war, lets just get it over with and start the war. Why wait and see if it happens?



Have you seen team America? did you see how they saved the Parsians? Lets just go in and start firing first and asking the questions later.




posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by zurvan

Yeah so lets go and bomb the country that potentially has nukes inorder to stop them potentially attacking us? yeah Israel as you say is not that popular so surely an image boosting headline announcing that Israel has used pre emptive nukes on Iran will rise that popularity!

I mean right now there is a chance for war, lets just get it over with and start the war. Why wait and see if it happens?



Have you seen team America? did you see how they saved the Parsians? Lets just go in and start firing first and asking the questions later.



Maybe you misunderstood me, or perhaps i never phrased it proporly. What i ment was that if they find that Iran is trying to build nukes, then I support Isreal.



posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 10:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by zurvan Have you seen team America? did you see how they saved the Parsians? Lets just go in and start firing first and asking the questions later.


Yes, “Team America”:


U.S. efforts to end Libya’s weapon programs spanned four presidential administrations. For thirty years, Libya’s mercurial leader, Col. Muammar Qadhafi, had ambitions to become the leader of the Arab world and to raise Libya’s prestige among Islamic and other Third World countries. As part of that effort, Qadhafi sought to obtain nuclear and chemical arms and remained defiant on non-proliferation and arms control issues, especially those related to Israel’s nuclear capability….
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (full article)


Wow!!…has a familiar tone...there are some lessons here too...at least Qadhafi has a newly viable economy and nuclear program sponsored in cooperation with the US.

BTW the Parsians are welcome…don’t assume military threats are not part of diplomatic musings and purposeful pushes. Iran has everything to gain and is already loosing.

The US’s attention is bearing upon the current internal workings and dangers within Pakistan…Iran is a façade and full of willing amateurs.


mg



posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 11:51 PM
link   
Man what are you people so scared of? Why is Iran this big threat, I dont understand it, all they want is nuclear reactors, thats all they said they ever wanted. Why should I believe my government, they dont exactly have a good track record with telling the truth.

Ahmadinejad says he wants to wipe Israel wiped off the map, no he didnt. He said he wanted to see Israel off the map, meaning he wanted to see the State of Israel dismantled and returned to its rightful owners, the Palestinians.

And even if they wanted nukes, it would only be to protect themselves from outsiders, many countries surrounding Iran have nukes, including Israel, who threatened to bomb 200 Iranian sites, by the way.

Why is it so dangerous for Iran to be experimenting with peaceful nuclear reactors? Why would you believe the government spin?



posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 02:51 AM
link   
www.nytimes.com...

"The article asserts that American carrier-based attack planes have been flying simulated nuclear-bomb runs within range of Iranian coastal radars. A Pentagon official said he was unaware of any such flights, but added that within the last three weeks Iran had ratcheted up its air defenses so high that it accidentally shot one of its own aircraft."



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join