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.

 

Israel may have to take military action against Iran: Bolton

page: 1
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Israel may have to take military action against Iran: Bolton


www.breitbart.com

Former US ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton said on Monday that Israel may have to take military action to prevent its archfoe Iran from acquiring an atomic bomb.
Bolton also said that further UN sanctions against the Islamic republic will be ineffective in stopping Iran's controversial nuclear programme which Israel and the US believe is aimed at developing a bomb -- a claim denied by Tehran.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 05:59 PM
link   
As long as the US isn't drawn into another war, Israel can 'play' soldier all they want.

They will have a tough time against a heavily armed Iranian military regardless of all the US toys they've been given.


"One can say with some assurance that in the next year the use of force by the United States is highly unlikely," Bolton told AFP on the sidelines of the Herzliya conference on the balance of Israel's national security.


I really hope he's right and not just in the next year, but ever.

At least he is talking some common sense for once:


"That increases the pressure on Israel in that period of time... if it feels Iran is on the verge of acquiring that capability, it brings the decision point home to use force," he said.

The hawkish former diplomat said that after a US intelligence report published late last year that claimed Iran had suspended a nuclear weapons programme in 2003, the US was unlikely to take military action against it.

"The pressure is on Israel now after the National Intelligence Estimate because, I think, the likelihood of American use of force has been dramatically reduced," he said.


Its unlikely for the US to attack because our military is bogged down in other foreign wars and the civilian population isn't stupid enough to believe another war is a good idea.






Looks like nuclear weapons to me...




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



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by biggie smalls
 


Bolton wants Iran to be attacked as soon as possible:


Bolton said that military action against Iran should be taken before Tehran acquires a bomb.

"The calculus in the region changes dramatically once Iran has nuclear capability, meaning the preemptive use of force or the overthrow of the Iranian regime has to come before they get the weapon," Bolton said.


These people are so disconnected from reality its not even funny.

Israel can have nuclear reactors and nuclear weapons. So can Pakistan and India.

But the moment an Islamic Republic wants to have nuclear power (and possibly weapons) there's this huge deal about it.

I do not want to hear the whole wiping Israel off the map bull#, that's been proven false on ATS many times.


I think this part is really funny:


"If you are worried about an Iran with nuclear weapons and an extreme theological regime in power, the time to take the plan of action is before Iran acquires the weapons.

"Once it acquires the weapons there is a risk of retaliation with nuclear capability and that's why Israel is in danger -- it is a very small country and two or three nuclear weapons (and) there is no more country. The pressure to act is intensive and the window of time available is narrow."


I'm more worried about the extremist US regime in power with nuclear weapons than anyone else to be honest.

I'd say the world is in danger while we still have nukes.

Bomb us please...and take our nukes away from us. We're like a kid who doesn't know when to stop playing with fire.

[edit on 1/21/2008 by biggie smalls]



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 06:16 PM
link   
I agree with you on the "as long as the U.S. doesn't have to get involved" statement biggie. But Dumbya and Dick Insaney have been frothing at the mouth to toss us into this mix for some time. They appear almost desperate to start up an additional war. And knowing that our gov is pupeteered by the Israelis, this whole situation makes me nervous.



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 06:17 PM
link   
reply to post by biggie smalls
 


There's a few other news sources covering this story as well each with their own spin:

Jerusalem Post

We must attack Iran before it gets bomb - telegraph

An older news article from New American: Pushing war with Iran



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 10:19 AM
link   
Why not just disarm Israel instead and prevent any more loss of life ? Their military serves only to terrorize fugitives anyways. The US would then become friends with the arab countries and Iran, there would be a big party with Shakira in Beyrouth, and there will be no more terrorism. Also, the millions of deported palestinians could finally return to their homesteads.



[edit on 22-1-2008 by ergoli]



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 10:32 AM
link   
Nothing like a good ol' recession to kick off a war, take the peoples minds off it.
After all, any hardships can then be blamed on the war


Bolton knows full well that at the first sign of any retaliation by Tehran against an Israeli strike, the US will weigh in full force to support Israel and putting the lives of US forces on the line instead of Israeli forces. Shrub and uncle Dick have promised the Israelis as much (and so have most of the current presidential hopefuls too).
The likes of Bolton just salivate at the prospect of bloodshed, as long as it's not their blood or that of their nearest and dearest being spilled. Not to mention it's also good for the military Industrial complex with all those shiny new arms to make.

I seriously do think the worse the recession / financial downturn gets, the more likely war becomes. It's good for getting the unemployed out fighting and dying, thus saving the Social Security system from collapse and gives the people something else to focus on.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by biggie smalls
 


I don't think any more countries need nuclear weapons. What I do think is that those countries that have them should give them up.

Iran, Israel are just fighting over who is going to rule the ME, from the Israel point of view is a matter of survival and for Iran is a matter of pride.

The result of a war between these two countries will be complete devastation for both countries, it don't matter if nuclear weapons are used. So no one wins, and a bunch of people dies.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by biggie smalls
Jerusalem Post

We must attack Iran before it gets bomb - telegraph


Bolton needs to take some prozac.

Better yet, maybe he could hit some meth, get that old kamakzi tweeker sense of immortality and go fight Iran by himself, because this "we need to attack" stuff is absurd.

We can't afford another war, and besides that I want no part in any Iranian attack. I wish these chicken-hawks would be required to either fight the unnecessary wars they love so much or be obligated to also send their children alongside those of the people they demand support their insidious machinations.

Just leave the Iranians alone.

Israel will be just fine with a neighbor that has nuclear energy and if they do eventually get the bomb then they would both be fools to use them on each other. I bet neither would do it.

Fear of mutual destruction might even be the one thing to bring peace to the mid-east.


- Lee



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bunch
...from the Israel point of view is a matter of survival and for Iran is a matter of pride.


Hey Bunch,

What exactly does that statement mean?

I find that it is both a matter of survival and an issue of pride for both countries. Right now the playing field is not equal and heavily favors Israel due to the enormous support she gets from the United States. As it stands Israel has the power to destroy Iran with it's nuclear (shhhh) arsenal should it decide to use those invisible missiles. There is no fear of an attack of equal measure from an Iranian nuclear arsenal that would make them think twice about such actions.

If that ain't a matter of survival on the Iranian side I don't know what is.

p.s. I also think they simply have a right to nuclear energy.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 10:46 AM
link   

I don't think any more countries need nuclear weapons. What I do think is that those countries that have them should give them up.


Good idea, a WMD-free mideast. Starting with those who already have them. But that doesnt seem to be the american approach of the subject. (even though the fallacious Bush-Sharon method was to boast it on every single occasion into the US media in order to psychotize and brainwash the helpless american population)


Iran, Israel are just fighting over who is going to rule the ME, from the Israel point of view is a matter of survival and for Iran is a matter of pride.


It's not a matter of survival for israel. All the palestinian victims are asking for is the right to return to their homesteads and compensation for the horrid and massive destruction brought about by the zionists. There would be an arab majority in Israel, but the jews would blend in well (even if they would have to work hard for the next fifty years to pay the bills). Iran is the one really, confronted with american and israeli war threats, that is working for survival and to avert millions of victims. May God be with them in that noble cause and inspire their great leaders.




[edit on 22-1-2008 by ergoli]



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by lee anoma
 


That Israel hasn't used nuclear weapons at this point, even when they were getting attack from all fronts and it was widely speculated that they had nuclear weapons at that point and didn't used them it shows a great amount of restraint IMO. Which makes any arguement that Israel wants to use nuclear weapons against Iran or any of its neighbors just plain wrong.

If they want it to, they would have done it by now.

If Iran want nuclear energy they are within their rights to pursue that, if what they want is nuclear weapons then they are clearly looking for standing in the international community, the place they once had in the ME. That's just my opinion anyways.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 11:10 AM
link   
reply to post by ergoli
 


I agree with you on the Palestinian issue, something must be done that would bring peace for both sides, the Iran issue I don't think has nothing to do with that IMO



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by ergoli
 


Yeah so Gods wrath is brought down on us now and directly aimed at us. No thanks. Arab extremist are evil and Israel is a modern democratic nation that is much more like the U.S. then they are.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 03:44 PM
link   
I just heard that the son of the Shaw of Iran is working with some Republican guard members to make a march on Tehran with massive amounts of non radical Islamic Iranians to force the radical government out of power. I hope for everyones sake this is true.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 04:57 PM
link   
Y'all can say whatever you'd like, but even I know this one to be true.

And this is coming from someone who cherishes the land of Israel and hopes to see the holy sites in Jerusalem before the place is destroyed in WW3. Maybe New Jerusalem that gets set up after Armageddon will have placeholders?


But anyways, if I were the leader of *any* Islamic Republic, and Pakistan doesn't really count because they are in America's pocket at least for now, I would definitely consider pre-emptively striking Israel, particularly if I fervently believed in all the end-time hype. Notice the second Musharraf falls that Pakistan will go from friendly ally portrayed in the media, to the next big battleground, the first being Afghanistan, second being Iraq, then Pakistan, "to secure the nuclear installations from the terrorists". But I just got side tracked, back to the point.

As someone else said, just a couple of warheads would remove Israel as a nation, straight up. Yes, they have deterrants, they have nuclear missiles aboard submarines. So yes, Iran would likely get hit back, but Iran can take a few nuclear strikes and still maintain its sovergnity as a nation at the least, be it under hellish circumstance. Israel has not the space .. they have nowhere to go but boats in the ocean.

It would be a scene like the siege of what I believe was Bastogne(sp?) in WW2, as the Allied forces were trying to retreat off of the mainland into boats to take them to England as the Nazi Germans were coming in.

But make no mistake, even I see how tempting that is, and I really like Israel, plan to visit, or should I say hope to .. etc.


[edit on 1/22/2008 by runetang]

Edit: I have come back to say that no matter how close an ally is to another ally, only in the most dire of circumstance, such as one ally being completely and utterly unable to defend itself, should one ally do another ally's work by attacking an enemy nation.

In simple terms, USA should not attack Iran for Israel if it is Israel's problem. the USA, at first, thought they could handle it, but Bush has run out of time, and in the meantime hasn't even tried to groom an heir, so now even his own party mates are drastically different than him in some policies, like foreign policies. Guess he knew after the screwjob he was pulling that there'd be no way in hell that a GOP member would be President in 2009.

Besides, Hillary Clinton is down with the Bilderberg Group, she goes to the meetings. In fact, the Clintons and Bush families are very good friends, and Bush Sr. and Bill Clinton are like retirement buddies, they go on all sorts of trips and outings together; the true sign of real friends. So really, you Ron Paul supports can keep going, I applaud you for your efforts, but if it is going to come down to who the elite pick as President versus the People's candidate, if Hillary becomes the nominee, the Elite's have already won the whole election. They dont want a GOP member, thats how theyre trying to trick you, cant you see that? Mccain scares me frankly, he has called for trying to reinstate some form of the draft many times early on during the Iraq war when things were going worse than they currently are, like when the troops had the "body armor and humvee armor crisis", and before the "siege of Fallujah". The early uncertain period of the war.

So what we need to look at here is, what kind of President do we want in office when the cow pies hit the fan?
.......

I don't want one too overly sympathetic to Israel so as to engage us in a new world war, no. Mccain would do such a thing. Clinton would do such a thing. Would Obama do such a thing? I don't think he'd be quite as eager or inclined to resort to such actions, I really don't. Neither would Ron Paul, but Paul has no true shot at the Presidency anyways. Which, for Republican voters, is still no reason NOT to vote for him. Please do.

[edit on 1/22/2008 by runetang]



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sky watcher
I just heard that the son of the Shaw of Iran is working with some Republican guard members to make a march on Tehran with massive amounts of non radical Islamic Iranians to force the radical government out of power. I hope for everyones sake this is true.


The "Shaw of Iran"


Sorry, you must mean the "Shah of Iran".

Anyway, it would be great if this were true, as it would seem likely to de-fuse a lot of tensions in the ME.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by runetang

It would be a scene like the siege of what I believe was Bastogne(sp?) in WW2, as the Allied forces were trying to retreat off of the mainland into boats to take them to England as the Nazi Germans were coming in.



Historical correction here:

You are actually talking about Dunkirk, where the British and some French troops were evacuated to the UK when France was falling to the Germans in 1940.

Bastogne was a town held by the Americans against the Germans during the Battle of the Bulge (Dec. 1944 to Jan. 1945).



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by runetang
 


God will not allow nukes to hit Israel period. It is written that Israel will not be defeated by force but only by the false peace of the anti-Christ.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 05:32 PM
link   
I find it amusing that you don't want to hear about the numerous threats that Iran has made against Israel and the United States. Agencies have reported that there is a significant connection between Iran's government and terrorist organizations.
Bolton is right about Israel taking pre-emptive measures against Iran; and Israel can be assured that the U.S. will be there to back them all the way.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join