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.

 

Powell: Iran is a long way from having nuclear weapon

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 20 2007 @ 02:08 AM
link   

Powell: Iran is a long way from having nuclear weapon


www.iht.com

Iran is a long way from acquiring a nuclear weapon and is "foolish" for not investing its resources in its people instead of a nuclear program, former U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said Sunday.

"I think Iran is a long way from having anything that could be anything like a nuclear weapon," Powell told a gathering of bankers, businessmen and diplomats.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Nov, 20 2007 @ 02:08 AM
link   
At least Powell seems to have SOME sense.

However, I do find it interesting that he says that one of the reasons Iran is foolish is because they haven't "globalized".

Once upon a time, the people in America (as well as the leaders) would have felt that globalizing in and of itself was foolish.

The times, they are a changin.

I certainly hope he is correct in his assumption that the United States won't attack Iran.


Jasn

www.iht.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Nov, 20 2007 @ 02:51 AM
link   
Now, before I get comfortable with this particular headline, is this the same insider-info which assured us that Iraq did have something like a nuclear weapon in the not-too-distant past? I like Powell, seems to be a man of decency, but that is the first question which hits my mind, hearing such confidence about a country shrouded in a subtle veil of mystery . .



posted on Nov, 20 2007 @ 03:02 AM
link   
reply to post by OptionToChoose
 


I was thinking the same thing. I like Powell as well. I just don't think he is the best guy to be going on record as to how close any country is to obtaining a weapon. I am sure he knows much more than I do about the subject, I just think his credibility has been tarnished.



posted on Nov, 20 2007 @ 03:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Karlhungis
 


My conspiratorial mind is thinking it's because his credibility has been tarnish that he was allowed to go on record with this news. I mean, you're thinking it, the poster before you is thinking it, I'm sure others are thinking it too.

Part of the grand master plan?



posted on Nov, 20 2007 @ 03:16 AM
link   
The sat pics being so powerfully depicted to us by Col. Powell of trailers of suggested chem factories are still fresh in my mind. I like the guy personally. But I am reminded of the tale of the scorpion asking the horse for a ride across the river.
I serve for the pleasure of the puke president, really said it all. He has higher moral character, and knows he lost it to Bushco. I believe this is his attempt at rescidivism, yes I know I hacked the spell, or hmm maybe not.

[edit on 20-11-2007 by jpm1602]

[edit on 20-11-2007 by jpm1602]



posted on Nov, 20 2007 @ 04:24 AM
link   
IMO powell was one of the half decent men in the administration, its been reported several times that he tried to talk bush out of occupation of an arab country.
i recall him talking about how Neocon war hawks have hijacked the adminstration and such. i really think he was simply outnumbered and essentially had no voice. He was one of the only men in the adminstration who has actually been to war, and thats why he had his reservations. The rest of the punks, the closest they have ever been to war is when they drive by a funeral at Arlington Cemetary.



posted on Nov, 20 2007 @ 04:30 AM
link   
Couldn't have said it better TK, Powell got taken for a ride and finally said f it.



posted on Nov, 20 2007 @ 06:17 AM
link   
First things first. Powell said this in front of bankers, businessmen and diplomats in Kuwait City Kuwait. What purpose would these words have on people like that? What was he trying to make happen? What is his agenda? Please think about what I just said.

Next is what he knew from his time in the gov't. All the classified info he has seen or heard cannot be used to his or anyone else's benefit. He cannot even mention his opinion if he knows classified info on a certain topic since his opinion is based on classified info. So what am I supposed to think about his words?

I think this is a setup. Like many of you I thought this man did a good job while he was in, but reading this takes away much of his credibility with me. Anyone who signed a non-disclosure agreement cannot talk about that info in away way shape or form. So how can Powell tell these people that Iran is a long way away from nuclear weapons? If you think he didn't have access to info like this when he was with the gov't then I can't discuss my point with you.

So do you think Powell doesn't know anything classified on Iran and it was ok to say this? Or do you think he was up to something during this meeting? Those are the 2 choices I see.

Can anyone else point out another reason? From a military point of view he made a mistake by saying what he did. Also, when did he last see intel on Iran? While he might still have a clearance he left the gov't so he doesn't have a need to know. So maybe his opinion is based on old intel. The biggest problem is he can't talk about it no matter what.

I hope everyone here understands this is how things get messed up in the world. Someone says something that doesn't know the latest info and events start to happen. If Powell does have access to the latest intel many questions come to mind. Why does he need to see this intel? Who is letting him see this intel?

I hope this post makes sense since knowing how the system works helps you pick out info that is most likely incorrect. People who know classified info don't talk about it unless they are trying to cause something to happen. Is this the case with Powell?



posted on Nov, 20 2007 @ 01:07 PM
link   
I'll never forget the address to the nation in which Sprout accidentally said, "We rule by confusion", backed quickly with "they rule with confusion". Confusion is what they do best. I believe Powell to be a very good man, just my gut feeling.



posted on Nov, 20 2007 @ 02:35 PM
link   
As NJ Mooch indicated, a couple of points stand out to me as well:


From the OP's article:
...Powell told a gathering of bankers, businessmen and diplomats...


And


From the OP's article:
...They have not globalized, they have not come up in the international economic community...

Emphasis added

This indicates to me that Iran has remained independent of the control that would be imposed upon their economy if they were to borrow from the international banking elite.

Can you say: "Compound Interest?"

Here's a couple of threads that have touched upon this subject:

Behind the Drums of War with Iran: Nuclear Weapons or Compound Interest?

About This Axis Of Evil Thing

One way to look at this situation:

Powell wants to reassure the international banking elite that, before Iran gets the bomb, there is still time to bring Iran under their dominion.

Powell may be a nice guy, but he may also be a shill for the elite.

But if he can convince the IB Elite that they can get what they want without unleashing their war-heads, i.e. Cheney and crew in Washington, to bomb Iran into submission and possibly igniting WW III, then, I suppose, that's a good thing.

But I don't see what's so bad, on a moral level, about Iran resisting debt to the IB Elite, and planning for their economic future beyond the "Oil Age."



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join