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.

 

UN atom watchdog chief says to quit if Iran attacked

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 04:03 PM
link   

UN atom watchdog chief says to quit if Iran attacked


rawstory.com

The U.N. nuclear watchdog chief warned in comments aired Saturday that any military strike on Iran could turn the Mideast to a "ball of fire" and lead Iran to a more-aggressive stance on its controversial nuclear program.

The comments by Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, came in an interview with an Arab television station aired Saturday, a day after U.S. officials said they believed recent large Israeli military exercises may have been meant to show Israel's ability to hit Iran's nuclear sites.
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.cnn.com
www.msnbc.msn.com
www.foxnews.com
news.bbc.co.uk

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Report: Israel Rehearsed Attack on Iran
Bomb Iran? What's to Stop Us?
US: Israeli Military Exercise Directed at Iran




posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 04:03 PM
link   
I just wonder who will strike first, the U.S. or Israel? This has been going on for too long now, either they bomb them or they don't.

rawstory.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 04:35 PM
link   
HMMM....


This guy warns of consequences if anyone attacks Iran over its "peaceful" nuclear program. Why is it I never hear anyone warning Iran that if it doesn't STFU about wiping Israel off the map and start letting in weapon inspectors immediately, that Israel or the US or BOTH are going to give his entire country a bunker busting wedgy. Why aren't these officials warning Iran???

If Iran is running a peaceful program, then why not let in the inspectors to ALL areas? Instead he makes remarks about "soon Israel will be gone" and smirks about how defiant they are. Saddam played that game, we dug him out of a hole and hung him. His country is still occupied by the very ones he thought would never have the nerve to act against him or step foot in his country. WRONG.



posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by super70
This guy warns of consequences if anyone attacks Iran over its "peaceful" nuclear program. Why is it I never hear anyone warning Iran[...]


What?

Well, if you never hear anyone warning Iran regarding their nuclear program then I guess you haven't read or seen any news in the past year or so.

They have been warned and sanctioned numerous times. Even Russia warned them, and the EU just recently offered them a proposal to stop their nuclear enrichment program, not to mention the UN sanctions.



posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 06:40 PM
link   
Seem familiar? To me it is nauseatingly reminiscent of the weapons inspectors that had to flee Iraq right before we invaded.

Iran very well could only be seeking to produce energy, or they could be seeking weapons capabilities. Rushing to PREEMPTIVE war has been proven to not work well for the USA so maybe we should listen to the professionals this time and put our guns down until we KNOW we need to use them.

The way the Director of the IAEA makes it sound exactly what Iran is doing is unclear. At most importantly does not pose a 'grave and eminent threat'. Attacking would only lead to instability and violence, and prove to be a strong motivation for Iran to ensure it develops nuclear weapons with which to defend itself.



"If you do a military strike, it will mean that Iran, if it is not already making nuclear weapons, will launch a crash course to build nuclear weapons with the blessing of all Iranians, even those in the West."


IT is exactly the same. The US is now poised, this time with its 'hawk' Israel perched on it's shoulder, to attack another nation in the middle east that poses not threat to us and who in the attacking is highly likely to mobilize against us.

These policies are absolutely insane and they need to be stopped.

thinkprogress.org
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by jhill76


I just wonder who will strike first, the U.S. or Israel?


I am thinking it will be Israel.




"1981: Israel bombs Baghdad nuclear reactor" Link
The Israelis have bombed a French-built nuclear plant near Iraq's capital, Baghdad, saying they believed it was designed to make nuclear weapons to destroy Israel.

It is the world's first air strike against a nuclear plant.

An undisclosed number of F-15 interceptors and F-16 fighter bombers destroyed the Osirak reactor 18 miles south of Baghdad, on the orders of Prime Minister Menachem Begin.


I think the USA would involve itself with bombing facilities they deem to be producing terrorists or materials contributing to terrorists in Iraq. But this is just shot from the hip and MHO.

reply to post by super70
 




Originally posted by super70
HMMM....


This guy warns of consequences if anyone attacks Iran over its "peaceful" nuclear program. Why is it I never hear anyone warning Iran that if it doesn't STFU about wiping Israel off the map and start letting in weapon inspectors immediately, that Israel or the US or BOTH are going to give his entire country a bunker busting wedgy. Why aren't these officials warning Iran???


My thought on this is the importance of the fine art of seeing through peoples bull #. Besides my understanding is the Imadinnerjacket(sp?) is simply a figure head and doe snot in fact run the country. Still having your mouth peice say that kind of trash is looking for trouble.

Still when we talk about inevitably killing innocents, and war ALWAYS does, we should not be so cavalier. War should be reserved for situations where it is an absolute necessity.


[edit on 21-6-2008 by Animal]



posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 07:45 PM
link   
Yet he has been the one forced to confront Iran many times over their bold faced lies that they have been telling the IAEA and U.N. in recent months. The guy is an Islamic apologist and he was backing Iran for years before the evidence became overwhelming that Iran was up to no good.

This is him crying because he knows that Iran is guilty as charged and it gets no better than this.

I love it!!!!



posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by jhill76


I just wonder who will strike first, the U.S. or Israel? This has been going on for too long now, either they bomb them or they don't.

rawstory.com
(visit the link for the full news article)


Israel will lead the way and when and if Iran decides to hit back then the U.S. will give them the knock out blow. Or if Israel decides that it is going in that Bush says no we will do it instead so it gets done right and puts them back more than a few years.

I don't like war but Iran has been a thorn in our backside for 30 something years and they have been taunting us ever since we have been in Iraq. So I say its high time they feel the wrath of the U.S. military them cocky ignorant Islamic fascist pigs.



posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by jhill76
I don't like war but Iran has been a thorn in our backside for 30 something years and they have been taunting us ever since we have been in Iraq. So I say its high time they feel the wrath of the U.S. military them cocky ignorant Islamic fascist pigs.


I'll try to keep that in mind when either Russian missiles (Russia is a mutual defense partner of Iran) come raining down on U.S. soil or the pissed-off Jihad sets off the 2 to 25 missing [worldwide] suitcase bombs in the U.S.

Who gave them military equipment and training in years past (to fight "Iraq")? We did. Who leaked nuclear bomb details to them? We did.

I wonder where you live... Have you taken a look at the latest FEMA Potential Nuclear Strikes maps of the U.S. lately. Do you have a month's supply of iodine tablets? Do you have a nuclear-rated "gas" mask at home?

War is not the answer.

Even if you just like attacking various "cocky ignorant Islamic fascist pigs", the reality is that we can't afford it. The Iraq and Afghanistan "wars" have already helped bankrupt the U.S.

I don't think you realize just how much the "other" people of the world hate America's guts for what we have done in the name of "freedom and democracy" since WW2. And no doubt, there a billions of them hoping that those "cocky ignorant Christian fascist pigs" get their just deserts as well.



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 05:42 PM
link   
I think Iran had 4 years to come clean about all this.With all the Bush and threats from Israel,they basically don't care.Let Iran have the nuclear capability?They start threatening all countries with striking distance esp Israel.Then you got a nuclear exchange.Something that could have been avoided before by someone not doing anything about it.I think it creates a bigger problem by not getting rid of the problem first.Just like cancer.


[edit on 22-6-2008 by alienstar]



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 05:47 PM
link   
Exactly. Having them or desiring them does not make you a threat.

That was made pretty clear recently: Why Is Bush Helping Saudi Arabia Build Nukes?: Wall Street Journal

If you are going to say that radical states desiring nuclear power are a threat, then why the hell would you help Saudi Arabia?

Whatever, I guess Ahmadinejad is the boogy man of the hour. Just don't adress the double standard, in that case you are against freedom, and peace.


And why is threatening Israel grounds for this circus? Israel threatens people all the time, and we aren't on their ass about it.

If human rights violations, acts of violance and running your mouth isn't grounds for intenational sanction and retaliation, then talking about nukes and Israel sure as hell isn't.

[edit on 6/22/0808 by spines]



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by spines
 


The funny thing is Saudi Arabia doesn't publicly threaten genocide.

Who knew?



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by super70
HMMM....


This guy warns of consequences if anyone attacks Iran over its "peaceful" nuclear program. Why is it I never hear anyone warning Iran that if it doesn't STFU about wiping Israel off the map and start letting in weapon inspectors immediately, that Israel or the US or BOTH are going to give his entire country a bunker busting wedgy. Why aren't these officials warning Iran???




Why don't I see Iran tell the USA to stfu about attacking them!?

Don't you see that ironic?

[edit on 22-6-2008 by _Phoenix_]



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 06:33 PM
link   
reply to post by forsakenwayfarer
 


You missed my point.

Making threats against another nation does not warrant the current state of affairs with Iran. If threats were the problem, then Israel should be higher on our list.

My point with Saudi Arabia is that if we are going to cite Iran as a nation lead by an extremist, that we need to cast our gaze at our Saudi friends. They fit the bill of a terrorist harboring, radically run nation...why don't we ever make all out threats against them, as we do for Iran?

I am just trying to point out a double standard. If a nations actions and words determine our stance with them, Saudi Arabia should be getting the same flak Iran is, if not more.

Just trying to point out what I see as the Iraq buildup --round two.



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 06:34 PM
link   
I agree that it is dangerous for many reasons to allow Iran to build nuclear weapons and it should be prevented. My only concern is that the methods chosen to accomplish this are the very best options considering the situation.

The Bush administration, sadly, has shown that it must be questioned when it makes claims about nations, especially in the middle east, having weapons that pose a threat to the USA.

Nuclear war would suck. No one wants to see that ever happen, well no normal person.

But we have seen the consequences of attacking a nation on faulty evidence. We are already mired in an occupation that is taxing our country to the limits economically, militarily, and civilly.

To attack Iran on any scale is a frightening prospect. Most importantly is the honorless nature of attacking a nation that truly posed no threat especially under false pretenses.

[edit on 22-6-2008 by Animal]



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by _Phoenix_
 

I saw your post before you edited.
You say he looks like a hypocrite.

I present that your views are making you look like an



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by spines
 


I didn't miss your point as much as you might think.
The Saudis do not ever threaten to "wipe Israel off the face of the Earth" or anything along those lines.
Hell they even go so far as to "act" like they are our allies, so therefore in the (rather ignorant) court of public opinion, they must be treated as such.

Iran on the other hand, well, Iran speaks for itself. Literally.



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 07:34 PM
link   
Mohamed ElBaradei should quit already. He is a do nothing nobody. His stance is to be bullied and threatened as a way to coexist peacefully.

Confrontation is never anything to look forward to, but it's the only way to change things if that is what you want to do...

Otherwise a problem grows and grows intil the ultimate confrontation is really really a bad one. I.E. Hitler, Nazi Germany...



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 07:55 PM
link   
reply to post by forsakenwayfarer
 


If threats of violence are the issue, then why have we allowed Israel to continue to commit acts of violence against another peoples which is head and shoulders over anything Iran is actually doing.

Words should not speak louder then action. We turn our head away from the actions of our allies, only to threaten (often) based on the words of our 'enemy'.



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 08:06 PM
link   
reply to post by spines
 


Oh Christ, now we have to argue semantics?


Land is taken and given to Jewish people by the free world.
Palestinians go ape-# over this development.
Free world somewhere along the way misplaces it's mind.
Palestinians begin attacking the average innocent Jew and do a generally excellent job of acting EXACTLY unlike a nation of soverign people should act. Kind of like terrorists, in the way they do not wear uniforms and carry out their attacks primarily against unarmed innocents.

Somewhere along the lines, the "free world" (now lower case, because we must be PROTECTED) decides that this whole giving the Jews back Israel was a "Bad Idea" and now they are murderers and terrorists themselves for causing retribution for primarily innocent death.




new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join