It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Global riots if USA bombs Iran

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 03:04 AM
After all the anti-war protests, the demonstrations, the false flag ops, government lies and cover ups and the sanctions brought upon Iran, would we really allow an attack to happen against Iran?

If all of these people here
and here
stood up and took to the streets at the time of an imminent attack on Iran, who will the governments of the world listen to?

You? Them? or George Bush?

PARIS, Nov. 29 — Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is known for overheated, boastful pronouncements. So it was hardly a surprise earlier this month when he declared that despite demands from the United States and other countries that Iran stop enriching uranium, Tehran was pressing ahead and negotiations were out of the question.

“From our point of view,” he said, “this subject is closed.”

Which is fair comment, seeing as Iran has stated time after time that their project is for peaceful purposes. Yet the USA is standing firm in its beliefs.

Why? Oil, that's why...

nothing seems to be bending the will of Iran, which is flush with oil revenues. The incentive strategy, led by Javier Solana, the European Union’s foreign policy adviser, has failed to entice Iran to stop enrichment in exchange for economic, political and technological rewards.
IMO, it is only fair that Iran has the right to build nuclear power stations and nuclear weapons if it so chooses. How can any country have the right to own such devastating weapons, yet not let anyone else have them. If everyone had them, then it could almost make nuclear war redundant as there would be nothing left after an all out strike.

So, looking at it from the other side of the pond,

Alec Russell: So is America going to bomb Iran?
Jack Straw: Iran attack would be 'nuts'

The Bush administration is planning to use nuclear weapons against Iran, to prevent it acquiring its own atomic warheads, claims an investigative writer with high-level Pentagon and intelligence contacts.

President George W Bush is said to be so alarmed by the threat of Iran's hard-line leader, Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, that privately he refers to him as "the new Hitler", says Seymour Hersh, who broke the story of the Abu Ghraib Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal.
and also this little snippet

The neoconservative Bush administration will attack Iran with tactical nuclear weapons, because it is the only way the neocons believe they can rescue their goal of U.S. (and Israeli) hegemony in the Middle East.

The U.S. has lost the war in Iraq and in Afghanistan. Generals in both war theaters are stating their need for more troops. But there are no troops to send.

It would seem that after all threats, negotiations and promises, Iran is still there and still sticking it's fingers up at the USA.
Right on!
I, for one, cannot believe that the anti-war protesters would simply do a peaceful protest march. Any attack on Iran (as it appears it is only for the oil but with an 'excuse' that they 'may' be making nukes) is really gonna upset the apple cart.

Did you know, that the USA holds the worlds biggest arsenal of biological and chemical weapons in the world? And now they want the missile defence screen set up in Europe.

Where, or when, will it all end? Will the anti-war protesters rise up and physically do the best they can to stop any further wars? Is the general population sick and tired of rich boys war games?

Edited title for clarity

[edit on 30/11/07 by masqua]

posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 03:10 AM
Iran does not need nuclear power when it is sitting on the 2nd largest oil reserves in the Middle East. They could burn that oil and power steam turbines for the next 250 years if they wanted to. They want a bomb. They want something that goes boom.

posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 03:20 AM
maybe iran wants to employ nuke energy to contribute the green house gas emisson issues and address climate change.


anyway, it is a really knotty issue. nothing is impossible.

posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 03:33 AM

Originally posted by cloakndagger
Iran does not need nuclear power when it is sitting on the 2nd largest oil reserves in the Middle East. They could burn that oil and power steam turbines for the next 250 years if they wanted to. They want a bomb. They want something that goes boom.

Iran is their own country and has the right to do as they wish.

America is not one to go around telling people how to live especially considering how we behave. It's laughable that America accuses OTHER states of being obsessed with weapons and war.

I've never been to an anti-war protest but if we attack Iran bet your ass I'll be out there with my sign.

No war with Iran.

If America attacks Iran I think you will see 2x as many protesters as we saw for the Iraq war.

Originally posted by Extralien
Is the general population sick and tired of rich boys war games?

Many people in America seem to be pretty ok with Americas aggressive stance. It's ingrained in the culture, which is disturbing and dangerous. To one another we are faily kind but it's not rare to hear an American say the entire Middle East should be a sea of glass from nuclear bombing.

And that's not too shocking either since people in the mass media say these types of things. Americans didn't just wake up one day and hate Iran - we've been taught to.

Naturally, the common people don't want war ... but after all it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country.

- Hermann Goering

He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster.

Freidrich Nietzsche

[edit on 30-11-2007 by discomfit]

[edit on 30-11-2007 by discomfit]

posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 05:10 AM
Why Iran?

1) They want the oil.

2) They want increased war profits.

3) They want fractional-reserve interest-bearing banking systems established in every country of the world. (Muslim countries generally do not allow compound interest)

4) They want to further weaken the American public economically so we will be more passive and accepting of the coming changes of the New World Order.

posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 05:15 AM
Well, back here in the UK, I don't know anybody who agree's with the US's plans for global domination.

I have muslim friends, soldier friends, hippy friends, teachers and tutors, people from all walks of life.... and not one of them agree with what America has done to the middle east.

I have attended anti-war protests and have met some of the nicest, most intelligent people there, yet I come on forums like this and when I talk to the idiots who say things like 'yeah well we'll turn their city to glass', I just think to myself, who or what gave these idiots power...

If the Yanks started bombing Iran, then I think the time will have come to really think about where we stand.

I think as a whole, the world won't stand for this....

Oh, and before I get the usual tirade of 'oh my god, you're anti-american', please realise I'm not anti-american, i'm just sick of being patronised by idiots who still think it's the wild west... I have a lot of american friends and thankfully most of them are clever enough to realise that the Iraq war is a shambles, that serves the benefit of a tiny elite.


posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 05:20 AM
misleading thread title.

posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 05:27 AM

Originally posted by Polite American
misleading thread title.

Sorry you feel that way.

I assumed that seeing as this is in the ''general conspiracy discussion'' section that it would have been obvious that it was a theoretical conversation piece of a possible future action.

If i had posted it in the breaking news section then yes, I would have to agree with you.

If you feel that strongly about it, i'll u2u a mod now and ask them to check it and see if they can help me modify the title a little or confirm that the title is ok as it is.

modded by mod, so got it fixed for you.. only had to change one small word.
thx all.

[edit on 30-11-2007 by Extralien]

posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 05:35 AM
I don't know if even a small minority of Americans would revolt, but if you think the tribal "Jihads" that are taking in place in Iraq are bad, you've seen nothing after the U.S. strikes another Muslim nation on false pretenses. # will surely then hit the fan on a global scale.

posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 05:35 AM
reply to post by Extralien

using the word"if" instead of "as" would have given the result you say you implied. as it stands now is misleading, it misrepresents that the the US is attacking Iran "as" we speak. not "if" the US attacks Iran.
but you already know this and labeled it as such to get a reaction which you did so I gues kudos to you mission accomplished.

posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 05:38 AM
reply to post by DeadFlagBlues

by your statement are you implying that we should not act against a threat if it will upset the muslim world population?

posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 05:38 AM
reply to post by Polite American

IF you would check the title, you will see it says 'if'.

Now, how about returning to the topic itself?

posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 05:42 AM
reply to post by masqua

yes it does, he asked, i replied and it got changed while i was replying to him.

posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 05:43 AM
reply to post by Polite American

Start a thread on the threat of Iran action, nuclear or otherwise, and I will gladly have it out with you. The further derailing of this thread isn't really fair to the OP or the people participating.

posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 05:55 AM
It's one thing to bomb Iran (which I'm against anyway) to stop them from having nuclear weapons, it' blody another thing to use nuclear weapons to bomb Iran.

Are they mad? If they use nuclear weapons that will encourage other countries to either strike back with them or to use them in future warfare. Once you make it the norm, then they will be used more often. That's not a good thing!

Bush is absolutely INSANE.

posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 06:01 AM
reply to post by monkey_descendant

They're not talking about "conventional" nuclear weapons, but "tactical" nuclear weapons. The difference between the two is pretty substantial, although I do agree that the use of any nuclear weapon is excessive. Especially considering that Iran is the only democratic foothold left in the middle east, even surpassing our strongest ally, Israel in terms of a "liberal and democratic" society. They've also been fairly honest with the IAEA. The only motive justifying our posturing towards Iran is obviously an ulterior one.

posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 06:07 AM
Yes I do realise they don't mean big ginormous nukes. But the symbolism isn't good!

posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 06:15 AM
reply to post by monkey_descendant

I don't think it matters. We've been using the same radiated ammunitions and "tactical" weaponry quite frequently the past 5 years or so, you know? Regardless of the means, it doesn't necessarily justify the end. And the "end" is the most important part of the equation.

posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 06:33 AM
I personally don't think the U.S. will use nuclear weapons on Iran. Short of using neutron bombs , any other nuclear weapons will still risk irradiating anything they might want in Iran. Also the fallout from the resulting explosions depending on wind direction will not please any of the surrounding countries including Israel, also Europe, former Soviet countries etc. I have a neighbor who travels back and forth to Azerbijan to work in the oil industry for an American company. He is more worried about snakes in the wharehouse. I've watched people on this site argue about this for months. This bomb will do this, that bomb will do that, They don't have any defense against this, etc,etc. Go out and buy a video game. This is reality we are talking about here. Real places real people. If it happens, the worlds population will react with way more than demonstrations. Forget about any upcoming election. The candidates will be too unpopular to elect: either because they were for the attack or because they were against and didn't do enough (in the publics eyes) to stop it. And forget about martial law. If it turns into war, the people responsible for enforcement will quite rightfully so be hunkered down with their families trying to survive. The best demonstrations we can have are the ones we're having here on the net while we still can. I live in Canada and I almost volunteered for Vietnam until I realized how self destructive that would be. I don't care how unpopular this post will make me but I am d--n tired of our countries being bullies. We could have genetically engineered a plant parasite to remove the opium crop problem a long time ago and replaced it with something economically viable for the people in Afganistan to grow and export. God knows there is less and less food to go around now as it is. We should also stay the hell out of other peoples religions. I am also tired of all this chosen people B.S. The U.S doesn't really need the oil. That is a myth. You want to solve the so called problem? A previous poster already said it. Level the playing field and arm everyone or disarm (nuclear) Israel with inspections carried out regularly and give whoever wants nuclear reactors for safe use the proper technology. My opinion is that Iran wants nuclear power for their refineries. Why burn oil for power to produce more oil and oil based products. Seems economically counter productive to me. Lets quit having wars for profit and as labs for development of technology. Thanks for letting me rant.

posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 06:36 AM
I think the use of nukes on Iran will be a bit silly really, especially in the case of hoping to acquire the oil fields.

Depending on where the targets are in proximity to the oil fields would greatly matter as to where you strike.

There's not much point in nuking an area with oil only to realise afterwards that you can't go near the place for X amount of years.

Those in the know would be carefully planning any attack to ensure the safety of resources, but maximizing damage to the actual target.

A discussion I have had before with people is how i see nukes as being weapons of mass destruction, so how this tag is apparently only connected to bio and chemical weapons is beyond me.

Even a gun is a WMD seeing as it can be reloaded to kill time after time.

For the American government to leave ''all options on the table'' on Iran is beyond me. It's quite simple really, end the idea of a war with Iran for the possiblity that they may one day have nukes. i cant get my head around the almost identical excuse that was used to start a war against Saddam.

Although we all now know he had nothing to do with a certain situation and group and never had any WMD's.
So why anyone would think we will fall for the same trick twice is just absolutely crazy.

But, someone somewhere is rocking the boat as there still are a few countries that believe Iran is trying to build nukes. There are several other countries around the world that have gained nukes in the last 20 years or so, but you don't see anyone going to war with them...

top topics

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in