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.

 

We'll nuke Iran - Bush promises Israel - HUH?

page: 2
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 11:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


Gave you a star for that post, quite astute.


It's refreshing to find common ground with those with whom one has, on occasion, tangled in the past.

If we can do the same on an international level, then there may yet be a glimmer of hope for us all.




posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 11:56 PM
link   
It is funny how everyone thinks they are so damn special that the world will end during their life time.


I don't think we are that special…

With eight years of Bush it is time to step back. The world hates us and we need to let the world turn on its own so to speak. Personally I don’t see good things happening with us pulling back, but we have reached the point that it becomes the only choice.

We will see support continue to Israel, but we will really start to pull back out of everywhere but Afghanistan for it is time for the UN to step up.
Iran will most likely get its nuke(s) but I guess that should be the rest world’s issue and not ours. The countries that are within Iran’s missile range can deal with it.

I would hate there come a time we say “we told you so” but it will come, and on many levels around the world.



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 01:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by sbob
Iran has called America the big satan for years.


In Farsi, "Shaitan" means liar, when describing a person or group. They weren't calling US as Satan himself.


So iran can say "we will wipe Israel off the map." is not agressive?


It has been proven time and time again that Iran never said this. The lie that you believe was a quote MEMRI made to further US's anti-Iranian mindset.



And iran's leader can say "we don't have homosexuals".


Way to mislead. He said, "We don't have homosexuals, like in your country." So Iran has a different population of homosexuals.


If we nuke iran, maybe they can have some mutant homosexuals....not that there is anything wrong with it.


Ever heard of tolerance?


I'm not saying it is good to use nuclear weapons, but iran has gotta believe its own propaganda of the "America is satan." Why not help out iran get what the devil Americans have.


Better question would be, why haven't you questioned the lies that have been taught to you by the media?

[edit on 12-1-2008 by DJMessiah]



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 01:40 AM
link   
Just out of sheer curiosity as to how far this 'news' has spread led me to to google this threads title...

It's rather interesting the amount of forums and web sites that have picked up on this.

Take a look..
www.google.com.ph...:en-US
fficial&hs=6qa&start=10&sa=N



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 07:03 AM
link   
hey if some of you religious nuts have a death wish, please don't push an agenda that will take the rest of us down with you...do the right thing, and seek help first, if you still are bound and determined, then for god sake, jump off a high bridge and leave the rest of us here to work towards peace.



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 07:05 AM
link   
we are nearing the point where we need to seriously think about outlawing religion, and placing "believers" in mandatory deprogramming and therapy units. How much more of this are we willing to take?



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 07:13 AM
link   
I'm sorry, but Jerusalem does not belong to the Jewish people. They can claim all they want that it's theirs, but in reality it's not. I don't understand why Bush is getting between all this, he's so worried about Iran which makes me laugh. But, the funniest thing to me is that nobody but the U.S. is allowed to have nuclear weapons/nuclear facilities.



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 07:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Armin
 





But, the funniest thing to me is that nobody but the U.S. is allowed to have nuclear weapons/nuclear facilities


Here's a couple of links to help alleviate your confusion with the uninformed statement above.

www.euronuclear.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

Hope this helps.

Becker



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 11:29 AM
link   
Yeah I call bunk too. Bush is a good guy, he would never think or say those horrible things. He has no ties to Israel or the Jewish people. He would only use violence as a last resort, he even said so.



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Armin
the funniest thing to me is that nobody but the U.S. is allowed to have nuclear weapons/nuclear facilities.

You see? This is what I love, I love guys like you. Really. People like you are the ones crying "Bush's illegal war!!!!1111" "Onoes!!!!!" and then you defend the Iranians for attempting to obtain nuclear technology.

Interestingly enough, from a diplomatic and legal perspective, YOU are dead wrong. The war in Iraq was sanctioned by the US Senate and the United Nations in Public Law # 107-243 and U.N. Resolution 1441. Also, the The International Criminal Court has no jurisdiction to review the legality of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, since the US is not a party to the Rome Statute.

However...

...Iran is a signatory of the Nuclear non Proliferation Treaty. That means that they are bound by it, legally. They have agreed not to "proliferate nuclear weapons". In attempting to do so, they are pursuing an illegal endeavor.

So, the US is all nice and legal like, and Iran is breaking the law. So I must ask you, why would you wish to obstruct the process of law, civility and reason and yet argue to allow a nation to break the law? To me, that seems barbaric and uncivilized...




[edit on 12-1-2008 by Reality Hurts]



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by DJMessiah
 


Just love that spin you put on that spin. LOL!
I find it interesting that we should believe your version as opposed to the previous versions, which have been broadly televised on US and Middle Eastern Airwaves.



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 01:13 PM
link   
I think the article miss quoted the source. Bush agreed to attack nuclear sites in Iran if necessary, not use Nuclear weapons to attack Iran.



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 05:25 PM
link   
Well since my post was a total joke, and trying to shed light on all the hate out there. Maybe the person who felt he had to breakdown my post like a science project should lighten up. ***cough*** messiah **cough***

If you can find any hate in my post then you need to not trust your media. My post was absurd period. Using nuclear weapons =bad.

No one but losers want to use nuclear weapons. We are more alike then different. If you like islam and I think most religions are man made bs, who cares. Just live your lives as good as you can.

This thread was started by a poster that has always sided on on side period, and I mean one side.....and he looks for lousy sourced internet scraps. I at least will try to see more than one side. I don't always see the right way, but I ast least try.

So if you do not like jokes why live. Hating sucks ass, and causes ulcers. And then you will have to use Tums (from that great satan country)...and why bother.



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reality Hurts
...Iran is a signatory of the Nuclear non Proliferation Treaty. That means that they are bound by it, legally.They have agreed not to "proliferate nuclear weapons". In attempting to do so, they are pursuing an illegal endeavor.


Where's the independent proof of this assertion?

And as for their racist, Zionist neighbors, playing the loophole of secretly gaining nukes and NOT signing the NPT, should they be above reproach?



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Reality Hurts
 




Its regardless that the US senate sacntion the war.
Hitlers Reich sanctioned his too.

The UN resolutions required just evidence.. not fake wire taps and bogus transcripts...

Also,

Should Iran pull out of the Treaty, then proliferate nuclear weapons?
Being your saying there performing illegial activites BECAUSE they are a part of that treaty.. maybe they should follow Israel's steps, refuse to be a part of it, and build them anyways.

that looks like the path that the US accepts.

Why cant some people just accept the United States government is CRAPPING all over international Law, to help its friends, allies and to take control of nations not sympathetic to the US and Israel's global agender.



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 11:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by arcnaver
Just love that spin you put on that spin. LOL!
I find it interesting that we should believe your version as opposed to the previous versions, which have been broadly televised on US and Middle Eastern Airwaves.


My version? Want me translate it for you, to show you how much the media lies?

Here it is in Farsi:

Imam ghoft'een rezhim'e ishghalgar'e Qods bayad az safheh ye ruzgar mahv shavad.


In English:
"The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time"


Where in that do you even see the name "Israel?" The translation the media used was done by MEMRI. Look at most, if not all the quotes Ahmadenejad has said in Farsi, then translated to Engish for the media, and you will see it's all done by MEMRI. Anytime MEMRI translates his quotes, they misquote him intentionally in order to get the western media to think he's advocating war.

[edit on 12-1-2008 by DJMessiah]



posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 12:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by goosdawg
And as for their racist, Zionist neighbors, playing the loophole of secretly gaining nukes and NOT signing the NPT, should they be above reproach?

Its not that they're "above reproach", its they aren't a signatory to the nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty, and therefore exempt from ban on proliferating nuclear weapons.

See, if you sign a contract, you're bound by it. Same with nations, but those contracts are called treaties. If you sign it, you are bound by the constraints you voluntarily place upon yourself. If you don't sign it, you aren't.



Originally posted by Agit8dChop
reply to
The UN resolutions required just evidence.. not fake wire taps and bogus transcripts...


There are other Security Council Resolutions that allowed for military engagement as well as the UN Charter itself. So evidence aside, there are other legal reasons that back up the legality, but I know that you aren't interested in hearing them. You're anti-US, as evidenced by the myriad of threads you've created, and nothing is going to change your mind. I'm ok w/ that.

However, when people cry about US legality and then promote Iranian illegality, well then, I'm not going to let the hypocrisy slide. Wouldn't it be better to get the facts and measure all nations by the same yardstick instead of making exceptions? Two wrongs don't make a right, my friend...



posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 03:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Reality Hurts
 


Pardon my frank retort, but whadda load of obfuscation and horse feathers!


I notice you did not, pointedly, respond to my request for independent proof of your assertion that Iran is actively seeking nuclear weapons.

Without this proof, your entire premise, you should pardon my insufferable tone, is full of hot air!


But, moving on:


Originally posted by Reality Hurts

Originally posted by goosdawg
And as for their racist, Zionist neighbors, playing the loophole of secretly gaining nukes and NOT signing the NPT, should they be above reproach?

Its not that they're "above reproach",


Damn straight! Nice to see we agree on something!



Originally posted by Reality Hurts
...its they aren't a signatory to the nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty, and therefore exempt from ban on proliferating nuclear weapons.


All right, back it up, let's inject some common sense in here before we proceed any further:


Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, also Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT or NNPT) is an international treaty to limit the spread of nuclear weapons, opened for signature on July 1, 1968. There are currently 189 countries party to the treaty, five of which have nuclear weapons: the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, and the People's Republic of China.
Source | Wikipedia | Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty

Now, out of all the nations on earth,:


Only four nations are not signatories: India, Israel, Pakistan and North Korea. India and Pakistan both possess and have openly tested nuclear bombs. Israel has had a policy of opacity regarding its own nuclear weapons program. North Korea ratified the treaty, violated it, and later withdrew.
Source | Wikipedia | Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty

So out of all the nations on this blue marble, only one, one, has continued to run a "secret" nuclear weapons program, without a doubt assisted by the USA, and since they didn't sign the NPT, it's okay? Out of all the nations on earth?


Wait a minute, the USA helped Israel get the bomb!

Doesn't that violate the terms of the NPT?

Using your "logic," shouldn't they now be threatening themselves to comply with the NPT?


But that's just silly, isn't it?


The USA and Israel don't have to abide by "the rules" do they?

They're self-entitled to ignore or make an end run around the rules, while setting the rules for everyone else, aren't they?




Originally posted by Reality Hurts
See, if you sign a contract, you're bound by it. Same with nations, but those contracts are called treaties. If you sign it, you are bound by the constraints you voluntarily place upon yourself. If you don't sign it, you aren't.


So, again using your "logic," since Israel didn't sign the NPT, they're entitled to make up crap about their neighbors, and then nuke 'em, if they even suspect their neighbors aren't following the NPT, which , remember, Israel didn't sign.

Right?


Again, please pardon my insufferable tone, but what you're presenting here wouldn't wash in a court of law, hell, it wouldn't even wash on a kindergarten playground.

Which is where this entire scenario sounds like it belongs.

Unfortunately, we're talking about grown "adults" on the world stage with their fingers on "the button."

And that just isn't funny...









[edit on 13-1-2008 by goosdawg]



posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by goosdawg
 


There is no obfuscation. You merely don't like hearing the reality of the matter.

Israel is not a party to the NPT. Iran is. Israel cannot be held to it, Iran can. If they withdraw from the treaty they are no longer held to it, but the UN would place sanctions against them. Fair? Not really, and yes, I would and do, support sanctions against Israel.

Now, to my knowledge the US did not give Israel any nuclear weapons before they developed one. The NPT states that a material breach of the treaty exists if you " transfer any nuclear weapons directly or indirectly through a military alliance, into the national control of individual states currently not possessing such weapons, and that they will not assist such states in the manufacturing of such weapons." So if we gave them any after they produced one, it would be legal. If you want to produce facts to the contrary, be my guest.

The rest of the stuff you wrote was an emotional rant asking unrelated and irrelevant questions and generally acting superior and sarcastic, so they will not be addressed.



posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Reality Hurts
 


My apologies for the tone of my last post.


I'd had a few and was in a sassy mood, wouldn't be the first time I've been a bit "insufferable."


Looks like we agree on sanctions against Israel as well, like that'll happen!


The rest of what you posted comes down to "plausible deniability."

What good is an "ally" who spies on you and steals your state secrets?

For that matter, what good is a government agency that would look the other way, while allowing it to happen?

And please don't play the "legal" card either, very little of what goes on "behind the scenes" by most government's shadow agencies would be considered "legal" by any stretch of the term.

Let's discuss instead what's right or wrong about the situation, in a moral sense, in relation to what's good or bad for humanity, eh?



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join