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.


Germany Pledges Iran Actions in Israel speech

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Mar, 18 2008 @ 04:39 PM
reply to post by JanusFIN

At the time of Cyrus and Cambyses, Persia was the successor to the Assyrian, Neo-Babylonian and Median empires (although the way in which it would run it's empire would be something utterly new). Cyrus, on defeating and conquering the Babylonians, liberated the Hebrews from slavery and (apperently) personally provided for the reconstruction of the Temple that the Babylonians had destroyed. That region was a focus of imperial ambition during it's day mainly due to the access the costline provides to the lucrative maritime trade of the Mediterranean. Inevitably Persia would come into conflict (and win, although Egypt would always remain difficult to retain) with the Pharoah.

Conflict with Rome and it's successor in the east Byzantium began with the Parthians and ended with the Sassanids who, after a bloody stalemate drained both Byzantines and Persians of manpower and money, were eventually overwhelmed by the Arabs. The conflict between the Romans and Persians lasted for more than 600 years!

Right. Again. Apologies. People can now start arguing about goodies, baddies, nukes and lunatics. Enjoy!

posted on Mar, 18 2008 @ 04:40 PM

There is no hard evidence on any nuclear arm program, ever.

Oh really ?

Pray explain the concealment of the Netanz Uranium enrichment site until it had a surprise inspection in 2005 ?

Please explain why IAEA inspectors found 70% enriched HEU when Iran's reactors only required uranium enriched to 1.5% U235 ?

Please explain why when a signatory to the NPT, Iran not only hid the Netanz site but also failed to disclose, account for nor audit it's uranium stocks ?

Please explain why IAEA inspectors found Plutonium being manufactured at the heavy water reactor site at the University of Tehran ?

Please explain to us what peaceful purpose Plutonium has ?

Please explain why Iran imported several tons of a restricted chemical tributylphosphate and do you even known what tributylphosphate does ?

Good on the Germans...

This is what I call adding good karma.

posted on Mar, 18 2008 @ 04:44 PM

Originally posted by chromatico
reply to post by JanusFIN

Remind me when America declared war on South Africa?

Where you get this one? In South Africa? Only time US forces has invaded some country in Africa was in II world war, when fighting against Germany and Rommels Africa Corps. I dont know any declarations in that operation...

But US buts was kicked hardly from Rommel that time. No more parade march to war after that!

Rommel didnt had any force left after retreating from el Alamein, but for that great lesson he still had, and that this genious general did as his last act in that battlefield.

posted on Mar, 18 2008 @ 04:47 PM
reply to post by DenyAllKnowledge

Thanks. It has been a long fight. And I think it still continue...

posted on Mar, 18 2008 @ 04:55 PM
reply to post by sy.gunson

Your post is intelligent and I am sorry that building a A-bomb is not my professional. I can not argue with you.

I have just read some UN inspectors study from issue, and what I had get to my knowledge is this:

They can not proof that there is nuclear bomb programs.

If you have links and other hard stuff to read, please, send me a link. Thanks.

posted on Mar, 18 2008 @ 05:17 PM
reply to post by jmdewey60

Interesting info Jmdewey60.

I personally do not want to war with Iran but if there is one, I doubt it would be over racial superiority. Your argument is that white people should not attack Iran because they may be ancient relatives, is a bit odd.

Wars have been waged between peoples of the same race quite often and quite brutally. My wife is Serbia with a Bosnian mother and her brother fought in the wars there at the time. I've seen them all and met people from Croatia as well.

They all fought each other and they all are practically the same people minus a few cultural differences. I can't tell the difference between any of them. They all look the same to each other as well according to what they tell me because I was damn curious and had to ask "what is the difference between you all?"

It doesn't matter if Persians and Anglo-Saxons are related in terms of impending war because it never stopped us or anyone before.

To me though it isn't necessary to have to relate personally to Iranians to wish that a war would not come between us and them. Even if we are absolutely different in every harmless way, I still would hold no malice for them. My point is that we need to find a way to stop the fighting amongst our nations everywhere because we are ALL related and we are ALL brothers and sisters.

- Lee

posted on Mar, 18 2008 @ 05:20 PM
reply to post by JanusFIN

I was speaking as to the large-scale boycotts and divestments undertaken by Americans against apartheid South Africa in the 1980s.

posted on Mar, 18 2008 @ 05:57 PM
JanusFN thanks for being frank in your reply to me.

I am not a supporter of the war in Iraq, but I am so disturbed by what I know about Iran that my thinking on Iran is 180 degrees opposite.

Tributylphosphate is used for precipitating Plutonium from used nuclear fuel rods.

Plutonium has no peaceful use. It's only use is to build atomic weapons. It is more difficult to build an atomic weapon with Plutonium than highly enriched Uranium (HEU), for which you require 95% U235.

HEU has only two uses, either Uranium warheads or as fuel in a heavy water reactor where it takes about 3 years to convert from Uranium to Plutonium.

It takes another two years of cooling in ponds and then you basically use a six step process of reduction in acids and hydrolization in alkalines to get a pink Plutonium salt. Tributylphosphate is absolutely vital in this pahase which is why you can't just buy the chemical.

In 1993, Iran imported tons of it from China.

Uranium is too easy to trigger therefore it is not safe as a weapon warhead.

Plutonium therefore is the only way to create a nuclear warhead for the ballistic missiles which Iran is building.

I am a former anti nuclear protester and campaigned against NZ's nuclear ties with USA in the 1970s and 1980s.

I am generally not in support of unnecessary wars, nor especially of nuclear warfare.

In the case of Iran, I am so concerned however that I advocate a nuclear first strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. I do not advocate invasion of Iran but I do support regime change.

I have Iranian friends and I do not hate Iranians. They are a very intelligent cultured people, but have a very evil, mentally unstable government.

[edit on 19-3-2008 by sy.gunson]

posted on Mar, 18 2008 @ 11:39 PM

Originally posted by 4thDoctorWhoFan

Originally posted by JanusFIN
I cry that day when the first bomb hit the innocent ground.


That is a very naive position at the least. Iran is asking for it by their actions.

Pftt.....I'd say Hamas and their crack rocket brigades are the ones really asking for it.

But never fear, Bush's new "nonlethal" Egyptian and Suadi aid to the Fatah Presidential Guard is a real breakthrough for regional democracy.

posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 12:51 AM
At first i must say i was mad at Iran but after informing myself better, it looks like they're complying with the directives/experts work of EIA (for the most part) so what can you do? Nothing really they're in their plain right to develop as much nuclear energy as they want.They didn't sign any paper for the non proliferation stuff though.I'm sure if they sign one some pressure would go away.

So i agree, when i read "possible WMD", this is blatant lie.There is no spider under the rock but i can't predict the future.

It's all about oil & stability of the region the first who's gonna pull the trigger @ Iran is gonna get it all wrong and for all of us.

Apparently they're in charge of the Ormuz detroit where tankers pass to provide oil for all of us.Imagine if this detroit is intentionally non functional for months: it's the chaos world wide.

[edit on 19-3-2008 by themaster1]

posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 01:13 AM

They didn't sign any paper for the non proliferation stuff though.I'm sure if they sign one some pressure would go away.

Crap... they were signatories. Why do you think the IAEA had rights to inspect nuclear plants in Iran up until they were banned in 2006 ?

At first i must say i was mad at Iran but after informing myself better, it looks like they're complying with the directives/experts work of EIA (for the most part) so what can you do?

More B/S... They were not complying. Compliance requires transparency and accounting for all nuclear material so that the material can be audited by IAEA inspection.

Iran concealed nuclear material including 600 grams of Plutonium and the fuel rods it was harvested from which IAEA found out about only from a surprise inspection. That is not compliance.

Nothing really they're in their plain right to develop as much nuclear energy as they want.

Tell me what harvesting Plutonium had to do with peaceful nuclear energy ?

Tell me why if nuclear power stations only required Uranium enriched to 1.5% U235 did Iran get caught at Netanz by IAEA inspectors enriching Uranium to 70% U235 ?

And why was there no record of the uranium enriched to 70%
And why was Netanz a secret underground enrichment plant disguised under a trucking warehouse ?

So i agree, when i read "possible WMD", this is blatant lie.There is no spider under the rock but i can't predict the future.

IAEA inspectors insisted before the invasion of Iraq there was no WMD project.

Now when IAEA inspectors tell us that there is a hidden WMD project in Iran, why do you now insist that IAEA can't be trusted ?

It's all about oil & stability of the region the first who's gonna pull the trigger @ Iran is gonna get it all wrong and for all of us.

That's crap too. Iran sells all it's oil to China for Euros.

Go read up on the facts before telling us what you don't know.

posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 02:27 AM

Umm.....What oil fields has the U.S. took over and is taking the oil for it's own consumption? I think your theory has a BIG hole in it.

"I'm saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: The Iraq war is largely about oil." – Alan Greenspan

3 points I found

-Allow two-thirds of Iraq’s oil fields to be developed by private oil corporations. In contrast, the oil industry has been nationalized in every other major Middle Eastern producer for over 30 years.

-Place governing decisions over oil in a new body known as the Iraqi Federal Oil and Gas Council, which may include foreign oil companies;

-Open the door for foreign oil companies to lock up decades-long deals now, when the Iraqi government is at its weakest.

Overall, the law would secure the agenda of ExxonMobil, Chevon, and the other majors, robbing the Iraqi people of their most basic source of wealth. Much is at stake. With 115 billion barrels of proven reserves ($7 trillion worth at $64 per barrel) and another 215 billion possible or likely ($14 trillion), there’s nearly a million dollars of oil for every Iraqi citizen. It’s a vast and precious national resource—but only if Iraqis are allowed to control it themselves.

what about cheney, what did he say?

"By 2010 we will need [a further] 50 million barrels a day. The Middle East, with two-thirds of the oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize lies." - US Vice President Dick Cheney, then Halliburton chief executive officer, London, autumn 1999

so the iraq debacle ISNT about oil huh ?

On Monday, Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's cabinet in Baghdad approved the draft of the new Iraqi oil law. The government regards it as "a major national project". The key point of the law is that Iraq's immense oil wealth (115 billion barrels of proven reserves, third in the world after Saudi Arabia and Iran) will be under the iron rule of a fuzzy "Federal Oil and Gas Council" boasting "a panel of oil experts from inside and outside Iraq". That is, nothing less than predominantly US Big Oil executives.

which is exactly where cheney wanted to be after his energy task force beeting of 2000/2001.

Here's a history lesson to help put some things in perspective for you. And BTW, you'll notice that all of these presidents are democrats ...

a. FDR led us into World War II with Germany.

b. Germany never attacked us ; Japan did.
From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost
an average of 112,500 per year.

c. Truman finished that war and started one in Korea
North Korea never attacked us .
From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost .
an average of 18,334 per year.

d. John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962.
Vietnam never attacked us.

e. Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire.
From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost ..
an average of 5,800 per year.

f. Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent.
Bosnia never attacked us . He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing.

BTW, Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.
[edit on 3/18/2008 by centurion1211]

We went to war in Germany, because they were committing genocide, and invading Europe. wether they attacked us or not, it was a world problem.
You canot use this as any justification.

Nkorea invaded the South, and immediately after WWII. We learnt from hitler than invasions and occupations need to be dealt with immediately.
Again, Iran hasnt invaded anyone have they? You cannot use this as justifcation for pre-emptive war.

Vietnam was started to counter-act the communist soviets. Yes, it was in effect a pointless war, but to allow the russians to enter and appear stronger than the west wasnt an option.
We lost against the vietcong, but proved to the soviets we are prepared to go the distance in ensuring they dont stake sole world superpower status.

Im yet to see evidence of Osams guilt.
Ive heard one version, from a party thats to date YET to be honest...

While Osama isnt a saint, this administration has done FAR FAR worse on the scale of humanity.

Americans feel there losses are worth more than the losses of Arab people, thats why people use Osamas attack on 3000 as justification for tens of thousands of death.

To date Iran have not attacked nor invadaed.
They have the right to research
If Israel can have nuclear weapons, after there disproportioned conflict against lebanon, then there's no reason why Iran arent allow the technology to counter-act Israeli's unrestricted aggression.

Do not forget, before America lied, invaded and occupied an arab nation,
neither Iraq nor Iran had an influence over the economy, or americans lives.
Oil was affordable.
World confidence in its super-power was high
And the people listened to the UN

America has no right, to attack Iran.
Not because they lied about Iraq
Not because they lied about 911
Not because they are allowing the world to drown in an economic puddle.

But because Iran are yet to do anything, worth having WAR waged upon them.

America deployed its Navy, its Military and its satellites around Iran, Iran didnt react.

Can you imagine what the USA would do if they did that back to them?

Only a fool believes Iran should be attacked, and thats what the govenrment hopes on, because its only a fool who will be willing to fight.

posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 03:24 AM
Good...........The Gremans OWE the Jews for sure. We are not talking about just slaves here...but the murder of millions. If Iran keeps this up I hope the Germans blitz right over that country and hook up with us in Afganistan.

posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 03:28 AM
reply to post by jmdewey60

Who cares.....i dont give a damn about race. it is their culture I hate.

posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 05:08 AM
reply to post by TXMACHINEGUNDLR

Keeps what up, exactly? The media hype over Iran being the next Nazi state is all based on lies. If Iran was out to destroy all Jews, they would have already with the Jews who have been living there for many years.

posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 05:22 AM
reply to post by sy.gunson

I respect your views and I have to say that you seems to be first people who I met, and openly are with US in its actions against Iran: With true arguments!

But nothing happens over night. For "unstable" regime there have to be a reason, because educated old culture is builded in thousands of years, and teachings from history is in background in every present day. So, why are they "unstable"?

How long have they know, that pressure against their regime will come from "western world"? Their secret service has maybe known from Iraq-Iran war, that US and EU is coming to get their head one day... Maybe they know exactly when, even then...

Building a bomb, is to protect their country. A-Bomb, if they ever had a active program like you claim with your hard arguments, is for stoping these ideas to come true. Threatening Jerusalem is direct two bladed sword against D.C. too. Using the bomb is quit different issue to talk about.

Continental Ballistic missiles are not needed, Jerusalem is the target to keep Christian Knights, US and EU forces out from their ground. That I understand clearly. Every regime has a natural mission to protect their civilization.

I have to say that even when I am 100% european, with VIking background, I am against continuing war against Persia, and expanding cristianity still with weapons and destruction. I see this just as another crusade.

I have friends in Muslim world, and I meet the people in my daily life here where I live. I am sorry whats happening, and the power is in hands of zionist bankers who are "bushing" the ancient agenda forward no matter what, and making still great fortunes with it. People, soldiers, no matter what side you are, are the one who loose.

In fact, I dont even care if Iran have nuclear bomb. Israel has 200 of them. Opposing forces have to be, in this multipolar world, other wise the only power who rules, come fascist right away, and destroy all the human rights in over night. Iran is important for balance in region. Like I say, using the bomb, or willingness to do that is whole different Issue.

What I have heard Iran pres. speech: He can go to any campus to make any debate the listeners will, anytime, and he has bright answers to share, and he does it openly. I can not say the same from US Buscheneys...

Than you from your interresting information anyway, I am also a soldier and interested from weaponry a lot:

"Soldiers first duty is to avoid the war, with all possible ways."

Information, and sharing it, is a very powerful weapon winning fights before they rise, and thats what I use daily.

posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 07:42 AM
reply to post by sy.gunson

Sy Ill ask you what Ive asked the others like you who are for bombing Iran.

How many times did Iran attack us?

If you dont know the answer Ill answer it for you none. I know there is speculation they are supplying the insurgency in Iraq but I dont know that for sure and you dont either only what the government tells us. Even if they were we supplied Iraq during the Iraq/Iran conflict and the mujahadeen in Afganistan during the soviet fun times there. Did the soviets come and bomb us? Thats the name of the game man its about money. We arent the only ones who are allowed to make money in this world.

In regards to the nukes I agree they are playing games no doubt they are shooting for a nuke weapon. But once again let me ask you. How many have they used on us? Even if they were stupid enough to use one they would use that one knowing if they did they would be turned into one big parking lot. The fact is Iran does not like Isreal "The Isreal That We Created" If anyone should feel threatened it should be Isreal and you know something I would be all for Isreal and Iran settling this.

Read the constitution and study some history beings you like to tell people they dont know anything. This country was not formed to police the world and NEVER i mean NEVER formed to be an empire which is what we are and what we are striving for. Im not anti American Im more American than most in this room but Im for what America was founded on not what America is today.

posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 08:10 AM

Originally posted by sy.gunson

Good on the Germans...

This is what I call adding good karma.

The IAEA has officially rejected the hypothesis of a military iranian programme. You don't need any more evidence against Bush's lies. And if you do, there's still the NIE.

Israel is the worst war criminal on the face of earth today and the German chancellor is covering herself with ridicule when she chastizes the evil evil Qassams. The Qassams killed 16 people in 12 years, while Israel killed 120 two weeks ago during one bombing capaign alone. You need to get the conflict figures into relation.

Iran has never been a threat to anyone. Bush Olmert and Merkel are bloodthirsty liars and warmongers, nothing more.

posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 08:38 AM
reply to post by TXMACHINEGUNDLR

Clearly you're some kind of expert?

Even though I passionately dislike the government of Iran (since the founding of the Islamic Republic) for personal reasons, it has little relation on the nations' true culture which is rich and diverse. Perhaps you could do a little research and arrive at an informed opinion.

I wonder how German businesses are reacting to their government's statement. There are quite alot of german companies that have close relations with Iran.

[edit on 19-3-2008 by DenyAllKnowledge]

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in