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.

 

"Its like watching a tennis match, and one side is suprised the ball is coming back"

page: 3
15
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 02:27 AM
link   
The problem , IMHO is not Irans vow to " defend itself " but rather Irans threat that it will attack other states namely Israel and gulf nations if attacked by the USA

that is the problem




posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 02:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
The problem , IMHO is not Irans vow to " defend itself " but rather Irans threat that it will attack other states namely Israel and gulf nations if attacked by the USA

that is the problem


Hmm, interesting viewpoint. Isnt the real problem someone attacking them in the first place? What they do in defense is a reaction to being attacked.

By the way, one could argue that USA is doing the same thing. They got attacked by a middle east terror group (no, not really, but lets say they did as thats the official story) and are now defending themself by declaring war on terror. So they are attacking Iran because of the attack by Iraq. Same thing.


[edit on 1-10-2007 by Copernicus]



posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 02:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Copernicus

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
The problem , IMHO is not Irans vow to " defend itself " but rather Irans threat that it will attack other states namely Israel and gulf nations if attacked by the USA

that is the problem


Hmm, interesting viewpoint. Isnt the real problem someone attacking them in the first place?


Indeed, while I don't agree with the approach if you were a little kid getting bullied by the biggest kid in the school, do you think that moral questions about whether to kick the bully in the package cross your mind? The Iranians see these kind of threats (if they were even made there is a lot of assumption about what the Iranians are saying here) as a threat to hold off military attack on their soveriegn nation.

I can well believe that apart from trying to draw Israel into a war which would polarise opinion across the ME this statement was made as a bit of 'tub thumping rhetoric' designed for the consumption of the Iranian masses rather than as a clear description of Iranian foreign policy.

You can't always examine what world leaders say in addresses and expect to see policy. Most of it is just rhetoric put there by spin doctors to sound good. Look at Bush with his spreading democracy stuff, where else is he spreading democracy? South America? Burma? China? Africa? North Korea? The actual policy seems to be "where it is easy and where US business interests are served". If it doesn't pass the test.. doodlysquat is done.



posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 04:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero
Let me get your position on these.

1. Do you think it is a good idea for Iran to have nukes and other WMDs?



I don't think its a good idea for anyone to have them. That having been said, as the US sits on potentially the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons in the world, and possesses other WMD's as well, and has the means to deliver them on a global scale, and Iran doesn't, the US stance is kind of hypocritical.



2. Do you think Iran is training and supplying anyone they can in Iraq to keeps the asymmetrical war in that country going?


Only in the same manner that the US kept the mujahadeen going i Afghanistan against the Soviets. The only difference is that the US is on the recieving end of it now. One was OK, the other wasn't. Oddly both are direct results of (in my opinion) illegal invasions of other nations. So then I have to ask myself which is right, and I have to say that neither is/was, but its hypocritical to complain.



3. Do you think Iran if had the chance would dissolve Israel as a country by whatever means?


No. I think they are looking for "regime change". That seems to be socially acceptable to the USA these days as a global power on a global stage, so whats wrong with a regional power seeking it on a regional stage?



4. Do you agree with the president of Iran that there are no gays in the country or issues with gays there even though it is still a death sentence for being gay, and do you think the women of Iran are the freest women in the world?


You know, up until last week not a single person in the USA actually gave a toss about gay people in Iran. Its a side issue, and a particularly crass one. Its been picked up because its another avenue of propaganda attack because the whole WMD issue just stinks of the "same old same old" argument. I would wager that 9/10 of the people who sieze on it as an idea/excuse to look for confrontation would gladly support right wing christian groups who see homosexuality as an abomination.
As for womens issues, you have to look at what is acceptable to the culture of the country, not what is acceptable in the USA. Iran is NOT the USA.



5. If Iran was just willing to have a good conventional military and played well with other countries would there still be a threat out there towards them?


They already have one. As for "playing well with other countries" I take it you mean "play well with right wing administrations in Western Powers who want to buy their oil as cheaply as possible", because I've not seen many reports of other countries having huge problems with them - have you?



6. If Iran is not after nukes then why did they refuse France's and most of the world's offer to build light water reactors for them?


Maybe because they want to do it their way, in their time, and not have to rely on anyone else for the technology? Most people want to be self-sufficient, don't they?

[edit on 30-9-2007 by Xtrozero]



posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 04:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by 4thDoctorWhoFan

Originally posted by neformore
Iran, a nation which has not invaded any other in living memory

I guess you mean besides the men, money and arms flowing into Iraq to kill allied forces? Oh, and of course the Iraq & Iran war.


Heres the deal. The ONLY reason thats happening is because the US/allied forces are in Iraq on the pretence of a lie.

Suprisingly, no allied soldiers would be getting killed in Iraq by Iranian weapons if the soldiers weren't there in the first place.

Is that a difficult concept for you to understand?

And as I said before, when it was the Mujahadeen killing Soviet soldiers in Afghanistan the US had no qualms whatsoever about supplying them with arms. Its kind of hypocritical to complain on those terms.



posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 05:36 AM
link   
In response to the original post,

I agree. Even though I disagree with a lot of things in Iran, why are we suddenly looking at nuclear war as an option to deal with them?

Iran is pumping help into Iraq? Who wouldn't, when the worlds superpower is looking across your border, licking it's chops at all the oil there, and the strategic location (play a game of Risk) being centered between Russia and Europe.

Nope, I think our country needs to worry about what is going on in our country.
I say, if someone attacks us, let's go after em. Sorta like we did with BinLaden.
But what started out looking for BinLaden, became a Global War on Terror...

It all doesn't add up.

Think. Question authority. Demand answers.
Will God allow Global Population Reduction and Ethnic Cleansing?

I pray not.



posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 07:18 AM
link   
reply to post by FreeThinkerIdealist
 


Damn good post.

Hit several nails on the head there.



posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 07:22 AM
link   
Ok, it seems my question hasn't been answered yet, probably because I was unlucky enough to be the the n9th poster. Let me repeat:


Originally posted by Beachcoma
Hasn't anyone offered to enrich the uranium with [Iran]? Not for them but with them?



posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 08:41 AM
link   
Hey Iran can defend itself all that is wants, I would expect them to.

That being said, you make it sound as if Iran is a do nothing wrong nation that is being unfairly picked on. That is not the case. Iran has supported and created many Islamic fundamentalist groups first and foremost Hezbollah. They are basically Iran's Foreign Legion when you look at it objectively.

Add on top of that the arms and expertise flowing into Afghanistan and Iraq from Iran, their support for Syria's waxing of anti-Syrian politicians in Lebanon and Iran's lack of transparency in it's nuclear ambitions and we hardly have a nation with "clean hands".

Iranians play chess not tennis. Much of the "game" involves not being able to be tracked back to the source and thinking moves in advance. Iran has had a radical regime in place for almost 30 years now and need to be looked at in that respect.

It's hard to negotiate with someone who has not proven to be trustworthy.

World: We think you Nuclear program is dual use.
Iran: No, it's entirely peaceful.
World: Why was it hidden from sight then?
Iran: Uhhh because you would think it wasn't peaceful, we HAD to hide it. But really, it's peaceful.
World: So let inspectors in to prove that is it peaceful.
Iran: (After stalling) Ok, come look.
World: I can't say for sure it's not for a bomb. Let the inspectors in detail and look at places you haven't declared for evidence?
Iran: What? You don't trust me? I am offended, now you can only look at places you know about and only the minimum necessary.
World: But you hid your program previously?
Iran: Yes, but now I am telling you the truth, there is no need to look for more sites, don't you believe me when I say it's for peaceful purposes?
World: ?????


To me, Until the IAEA gives Iran to totally clean bill of health and Iran lets inspectors have unfettered access to suspected sites, Iran is not to be trusted. So far the IAEA can not say with certainty that Iran's nuclear program entirely peaceful and has not been allowed to investigate and get the answers it needs to say for sure that Iran is not developing military application of it's nuclear program. Anything other than those things give me great cause for concern. Sorry but Iran is not to be taken on it's word with this one. Verification of this is paramount. If Iran is a peaceful nation as you imply, they should have no problem proving to the world their nuclear program is completely peaceful right?



posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by pavil
If Iran is a peaceful nation as you imply, they should have no problem proving to the world their nuclear program is completely peaceful right?


Ummmm. Hello.

Can I just point out that the USA has nuclear weapons? And Israel? (and Russia and China and the UK and France and India and Pakistan and North Korea before anyone gets picky about it)

The relevant term there is weapon

You are, therefore - if you think about it - arguing that the USA and Israel do not have peaceful nuclear programmes.

If thats the case, then why are they bleating on about Iran. What exactly does Iran have to prove to them?

And please, don't give me the old chestnut about "defensive weapons". Why should one country be allowed to be more "defensive" than another?

Please, think about the hypocrisy of a nuclear armed power insisting that a state only has a "peaceful" programme.

Come back to me when you've figured out quite how thats justified.



posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Beachcoma
Hasn't anyone offered to enrich the uranium with them? Not for them but with them?


Heh...well at one point (when it suited us of course) we not only wanted to help Iran achieve it's nuclear status but also use it to store our own nuclear weapons. Now granted this was all to maintain control of the oil rich region and to spite Russia's own attempts but regardless of that a nuclear Iran was never an issue provided we maintained control and influence over it's leaders.


11 February 1961 The US Joint Chiefs of Staff suggested to place nuclear weapons in Iran as part of its close links with Iran.

September 1967 The United States supplies 5.545kg of enriched uranium, of which 5.165kg contain fissile isotopes, to Iran for fuel in a research reactor. The United States also supplies 112kg of plutonium, of which 104kg are fissile isotopes, for use as "start-up sources for research reactor."

November 1967 The 5MWt pool-type, water-moderated research reactor supplied to Iran by GA Technologies of the United States goes critical, using 5.585kg of 93% enriched uranium supplied by the United Nuclear Corporation to the United States.

11 April 1974 US State Department says the United States considers co-operation with Iran in the field of nuclear energy as an alternative means for energy production to be a suitable area for joint collaboration and co-operation. The majority of reactors are to be built by the United States.

June 1974 The United States and Iran reach a provisional agreement for the United States to supply two nuclear power reactors and enriched uranium fuel.

October 1974 A State Department document says the United States and Iran are preparing to negotiate an agreement that would permit the sale of nuclear reactors as well as enriched fuel "at levels desired by the Shah." The United States also notifies the Shah of their support for Iran's proposal to buy up to 25% interest in a commercial uranium enrichment plant.

Oxford Research


Something I've posted before but the point still remains the same. Knowing that the US gave Iran a good head-start into the nuclear arena...even arguing the case for why they need nuclear power...were our leaders REALLY shocked that Iran had continued the program? I mean...was it really that big of a secret? I find the claim of surprise highly dubious considering our past involvement.

This move to strike Iran was inspired by multiple reasons I'm sure but I personally believe that Israel is the main one. The United States will act on their behalf but one thing you can be certain of...it won't be to liberate the suffering GAY Iranians. My God...the idea itself is laughable. Can't even believe that route of propaganda is now being explored.


Come on. Try again.



posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by neformore

Ummmm. Hello.

Can I just point out that the USA has nuclear weapons? And Israel? (and Russia and China and the UK and France and India and Pakistan and North Korea before anyone gets picky about it)

The relevant term there is weapon


Come back to me when you've figured out quite how thats justified.



Ummmm Hello,

Iran is a signer of the NPT are they not? All the other nations you mention either are original nuclear power signers of it or have to decided to either not sign or leave the NPT. Iran is bound by the NPT as it is a signer and has agreed to abide by the treaty. They are to be trusted to keep their word on the NPT right? Otherwise, why should they be trusted, given their track record on being forthcoming on their nuclear program?

You point doesnt' stand up. If Iran's nuclear program is entirely peaceful and they are signers of the NPT they should not be pursuing military applications of said nuclear technology. That the IAEA can't say with any certainty that Iran's program is entirely peaceful should be all you need to be concerned. That Iran has yet to become totally forthcoming and transparent in it's nuclear program is disturbing to say the least.

That you are willing to take Iran on it's word after only disclosing it's nuclear program after being secretive with it for 25 years boggles my mind. Sorry, I don't trust em. Verify the program has no military application first before I trust them.



posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by pavil
All the other nations you mention either are original nuclear power signers of it or have to decided to either not sign or leave the NPT.


Hmmm.

So who is to be trusted more? The country that responsibly signs an international treaty and agrees to abide by it or the ones that don't, and thus have no oversight or international inspection regime to verify what they are doing?

Oh...and the line about Iran and its nuke programme after 25 years...Israel STILL has not official admitted to posessing nuclear weapons, even though its probably the worst kept secret on the planet. The world has know about Irans nuclear generation propsals for a considerable time - hence the post above yours which details the nuclear tech the US passed to Iran - in what would have bee a clear violation of the NPT by the way had it been in existence then - in 1961

BTW, India and Pakistan never signed the NPT, and North Korea pulled out of it.

Also, Iran has never said it is pursuing nuclear weapons. You will find - if you research it - that that stance has been made clear many times. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei even declared a fatwah against their production - a fact that the IAEA recorded in its analysis of the country.

Instead, the US and Israel alledge that Iran would divert material for a weapons programme.

I would, therefore, suggest that your points don't stack up.


[edit on 1/1007/07 by neformore]



posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by EJHoover
reply to post by Xtrozero
 



Thanks for that. In fact, on that basis that it is effectively going to be a 'turnkey' set-up it does seem strange to be turned down by the Iranians. Perhaps to see it from another side they are just concerned about letting a foreign nation have a controlling interest in something vital like power generation. We cannot know what pre-conditions the French placed on that deal beyond abandonment of the heavy water reactors or what lingering control they will have by cutting off the fuel supply in the future. It seems like too good a deal and we all know their ain't no thing as a free lunch


On the benign side I think you are right. It could be they are unwilling to agree to anything that doesn’t include total independence. France could get upset with their oil prices and say unless you lower your prices you get no reactor fuel. In either case I think they could have done a better job in convincing the world they are not a threat and get free power on top too. Because of all the benefits that just working with other countries would generate for them while still working on freedom of autonomy there really are few conclusions other than the military one as to why they do not do it.



posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by neformore
Hmmm.

The world has know about Irans nuclear generation proposals for a considerable time - hence the post above yours which details the nuclear tech the US passed to Iran - in what would have bee a clear violation of the NPT by the way had it been in existence then - in 1961

BTW, India and Pakistan never signed the NPT, and North Korea pulled out of it.

See my above post. The US supplied information for the Peaceful use of nuclear energy, find proof to the contrary if you dispute that statement. The extent of Iran's nuclear program was hidden till opposition parties in Iran showed the world the evidence. Iran concealed most of it's nuclear program, are you denying that? The NPT treaty only applies to the miltary application of nuclear items. Peaceful use of nuclear energy is fine, monitored by the IAEA.





Also, Iran has never said it is pursuing nuclear weapons. You will find - if you research it - that that stance has been made clear many times. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei even declared a fatwah against their production - a fact that the IAEA recorded in its analysis of the country.


Even though European intelligence agencies discovered Iran seeking missile warhead designs that only apply to fissionable material? To use your words.....Hmmmmmmmmmmm.



posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero

On the benign side I think you are right. It could be they are unwilling to agree to anything that doesn’t include total independence. France could get upset with their oil prices and say unless you lower your prices you get no reactor fuel. In either case I think they could have done a better job in convincing the world they are not a threat and get free power on top too. Because of all the benefits that just working with other countries would generate for them while still working on freedom of autonomy there really are few conclusions other than the military one as to why they do not do it.


Indeed, perhaps it is a missed opportunity for the Iranians, not just in terms of the captial costs of nuclear reactors but in terms of the the good PR they might get. On top of this averting a war would be pretty beneficial as well.

I am probably wrong but i imagine the lives of most politicians to be quite mundane once you are used to the 'uplift' in your personal power thing. I imagine that you spend most of your time trying to balance the interests of both sides of your political spectrum (do radical muslims lean to the left / right or are they up / down? :puz
. The Iranian president will be no different having to deaal with those who say 'bring it on' and those who say 'bend down and accept it'. The conflicting views that seem to be aired by the regime are probably a mixed message due to this.



posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by neformore

1. Do you think it is a good idea for Iran to have nukes and other WMDs?


I don't think its a good idea for anyone to have them. That having been said, as the US sits on potentially the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons in the world, and possesses other WMD's as well, and has the means to deliver them on a global scale, and Iran doesn't, the US stance is kind of hypocritical.



You didn't answer my question, so let’s try it this way. Do you think the US should stop Iran from getting nukes, or should we just let them develop what ever they see fit since we have them already?



2. Do you think Iran is training and supplying anyone they can in Iraq to keeps the asymmetrical war in that country going?

Only in the same manner that the US kept the mujahadeen going i Afghanistan against the Soviets. The only difference is that the US is on the recieving end of it now. One was OK, the other wasn't. Oddly both are direct results of (in my opinion) illegal invasions of other nations. So then I have to ask myself which is right, and I have to say that neither is/was, but its hypocritical to complain.


You kind of played around this one too, so trying not to be hypocritical, but if we are at war and another country joins in against us isn't that justification that they are now a combatant too?




3. Do you think Iran if had the chance would dissolve Israel as a country by whatever means?

No. I think they are looking for "regime change". That seems to be socially acceptable to the USA these days as a global power on a global stage, so whats wrong with a regional power seeking it on a regional stage?


Regime change to Arab control? I personally feel it would be nothing short of that.



4. Do you agree with the president of Iran that there are no gays in the country or issues with gays there even though it is still a death sentence for being gay, and do you think the women of Iran are the freest women in the world?

You know, up until last week not a single person in the USA actually gave a toss about gay people in Iran. Its a side issue, and a particularly crass one. Its been picked up because its another avenue of propaganda attack because the whole WMD issue just stinks of the "same old same old" argument. I would wager that 9/10 of the people who sieze on it as an idea/excuse to look for confrontation would gladly support right wing christian groups who see homosexuality as an abomination.
As for womens issues, you have to look at what is acceptable to the culture of the country, not what is acceptable in the USA. Iran is NOT the USA.


You are right in a week ago no one cared, but what I find within these two statements that troubles me is not so much the statements but how ridiculous they are. First gays are in his country and it is a death penalty if caught, and muslin women are not the freest women in the world just from the religion they follow, and the more hard line they are the less freedom women have.

The thing here for me is what else do I not believe about him too. If he says this and the next sentence is “we do not have a nuke program” should I look at that statement the same way?

You my friend are debating everything as if you are in a competition to win. To say their women can be free based on what their culture deems is freedom is not freedom in any sense of the word, and just changes the meaning of freedom to fit the situation.




They already have one. As for "playing well with other countries" I take it you mean "play well with right wing administrations in Western Powers who want to buy their oil as cheaply as possible", because I've not seen many reports of other countries having huge problems with them - have you?


Lol so you think it is about oil? If we just let them do whatever they wanted don't you think we would get the oil cheap? To buttheads with them is like the opposite way to get oil cheap. We see China and Russia both look the other way in the Middle East as long as the oil flows to them. We could have done this with Saddam too and we all would be paying .70 a gallon for gas.



6. If Iran is not after nukes then why did they refuse France's and most of the world's offer to build light water reactors for them?

Maybe because they want to do it their way, in their time, and not have to rely on anyone else for the technology? Most people want to be self-sufficient, don't they?


Do you really believe that or are you just trying to come up with an answer anyway you can.

The bottom line is we all are looking out for our interests. The US feels their interest is to spread democracy around the world, and whether someone feels this is right or wrong it doesn’t matter. It is also Iran’s interest to spread Shia Islam under the Twelve Imam around the world, and once again right or wrong it really doesn’t matter.

From my perspective I see the world as a better place under democracy compared to Shia Islam rule and so democracy is what I support whether it is the right thing or not. I also see Iran about as innocent as the US is which in both cases is about zero, and so I do see them for what they are. That doesn’t make them evil, but it does make them a very active nation totally focused on their own agendas that completely conflict with my nations agendas.

It would be hard to convince me that they are in Iraq for anything other than to steer that country towards Shia Islam under the Twelve Imam rule, and to do that they need the US to leave Iraq still in turmoil, and to force the US out that could mean a never ending supply of IEDs, trained fanatics, and supplies. I also believe they will not stop until Israel becomes Arab land, and if that means killing 80% of them so be it.



posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by neformore
Suprisingly, no allied soldiers would be getting killed in Iraq by Iranian weapons if the soldiers weren't there in the first place.

Is that a difficult concept for you to understand?

Iran has the right to invade Iraq and kill allied soldiers because the allied forces are there. Is that your stance? If so, thats ridiculous logic and I think you know it.
Iran is invanding Iraq any way you look at it. Is that a difficult concept for you to understand?



posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by neformore
Ummmm. Hello.

Can I just point out that the USA has nuclear weapons? And Israel? (and Russia and China and the UK and France and India and Pakistan and North Korea before anyone gets picky about it

Ummmm...So what?
Just because Israel and the U.S. has nuclear weapons does not mean that Iran should have them. In fact, since Iran is run by a crazy and insane government, they should NOT have them.

Using your logic, if my neighbor is a convicted murderer, he should be allowed to have a gun because I have one to protect myself from the likes of him. Do you see the fallacy in your logic?



posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 09:31 PM
link   
isn't the CIA the reason that we have this whole Iran mess right now?

That title to this post's a good quote...



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join