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: 2
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 08:29 PM
link   
reply to post by forsakenwayfarer
 


Alright, I am not trying to get into an Israel conversation, that would go on for far to long, and is not the main gist of my argument. Let's not try to derail it by arguing the example.

Let me try this:

Nation A kills many civilians each year. Nation B talks about killing civilians.

Nation B is now an international threat, with sanctions and a constant relay of threats against it. Nation A is now heavily backed militarily and financially.

Why is 'B' more of a threat than 'A'?

For a 'real world' example (which has nothing to do with the completely, totaly, hypothetical example above):

Russia has nuclear capability, and has recently been going under some interesting, if not alarming, political/social changes. Threats against other nations have even been made (involving nuclear weapons, no less). Hell, they are even a major oil player and have a leader who has been criticized for his apparnt instability and need for controversy.

Pretty similar situation, which could arguably warrant international attention/pressure...yet it isn't paraded around as the infamous 'they'.

Why the double standard? Russia is discussed with concern by a few round table pundits, lasts all of a week and is mentioned every now and then. Iran is painted, constantly, as the worst enemy we could possibly be facing...ever.

I doubt I am alone when I call bull#!



[edit on 6/22/0808 by spines]

[edit on 6/22/0808 by spines]




posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 08:45 PM
link   
reply to post by spines
 



It's painted different because it is different.
As different as Picasso from Monet.

I could use a long winded post full of metaphors to explain this. However, I think it stands on merit that if you can't see that yourself, I don't think your opinion should really be interjected into the matter. The real world is viciously absent of absolutes.



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 09:11 PM
link   
reply to post by forsakenwayfarer
 


Still, the only Iranian threat you mention is the talk of genocide. Why does this warrant our attention more then actual genocide?

Pick one, lets do more then look at it happen. We don't. We sit on our hands and wag our finger. Yet we have already gone to one war and are talking pretty hawkish over another for a threat which is only there because we keep being told it is there.

Actual threats to actual humans who are being killed daily are left alone to play themselves out, yet we demand action and threaten military force over what might be someones intentions because we said they are.

They could at least make up some 'unknown, unknowns' for us to chew on. This time the WMD's are still in the 'intentions' phase.

I fail to see why we threaten to act against Iran, rather than persecute, or even threaten, those for what we know they are doing.

If we are so interested in 'promoting peace', we could pick any of the numerous civil-wars, wars between nations, genocides, military occupations or oppresive regimes which are presenting a very real 'threat against peace' right now.



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 09:37 PM
link   
reply to post by forsakenwayfarer
 


Yeah so? What's your problem?

[edit on 22-6-2008 by _Phoenix_]



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 11:06 PM
link   
I say forget what irans does. they can do what they want with there country. Who are the israelis and americans to say what they should do/not do in iran.

The facts are, iran trades oil in euro and the americans don't like it so they showed the world what they will do to those euro loving countries. Remember iraq, it was euro trading oil. Now iran gets the treatment for selling oil in euros.



posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 12:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Peepers
 


Little different when ones president is a terrorist trying to sport nuclear technology and all along threatens the world with his anger issues.I hope they bomb those nuclear sites soon as possible.

[edit on 23-6-2008 by alienstar]



posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 03:16 AM
link   
reply to post by alienstar
 


Once again, all we have out of Iran are idle-threats and the intentions which we say they have.

We threaten Iran almost daily, and talk about joint air-strikes as the best solution possible. Israel threatens Iran and Iran threatens Israel.

Why are we being inundated with the 'what-if' of Iran, while we ignore the actual issues facing large portions our world? The eagerness with which the media, and a disturbingly high number of Americans, has called for military action against Iran based soley on speculation which has proven to be unreliable (from bad/false information) in the recent past.

The same words are being thrown around and we are all taking up the same attitude as just before Iraq.

Those who call for a paced hand, and demand that actual threats be shown are being ridiculed in the exact same way; while once again the only proof for such immediate action against Iran is our leaders and media telling us the threat is there.

We should have demanded that the threat be more clearly laid out before Iraq, instead of vague notions of 'unknown, unknowns' and proof being a repeated: 'trust us'.

Why are we eagerly giving our confidence to a system which has done much to not deserve that confidence. Or are we going to shoot ourselves in the foot again and insist that idle-threats should be enough to attack another country.

Point gun at foot and fire.



posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by alienstar
 


Who do you think funded the iranians to be a war machine. Same with iraq, only iraq got it in the butt by its friend GWB and again by his savior son GW.

Think iran/contra affair before blaming the iranians for what is happening now.

Than think about chavez down in venezuela where the plan of GW failed but will erupt again if iran goes up in bombs and flames.

Think about libya and syria. If a nation has oil, they are terrorist to the american dollar if they trade oil for euros.

BTW, this morning the EU leveled sanctions on irans biggest bank. One step closer to irans euro system destruction.

[edit on 23-6-2008 by Peepers]



posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 11:56 AM
link   
It seems like a total impasse, it is quite obvious that Iran is stalling for time and
it seems inevitable that dire consequences are coming to pass not only in the middle east but to our entire planet. What demons are riding us to let this happen ? Is there no way out ?



posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by spines
reply to post by alienstar
 


"Once again, all we have out of Iran are idle-threats and the intentions which we say they have.

We threaten Iran almost daily, and talk about joint air-strikes as the best solution possible. Israel threatens Iran and Iran threatens Israel".


Hmmm, threating with military action everyday-please provide links as that is nothing but a lie.

BTW, is that like how Iran threatens Israel everyday????


Threat, how about a terrorist nation making nuclear weapons and boldly saying there is nothing u can do to stop it-they will find out they are sadly mistaken.

BTW, even the EU has figured this out and is doing stronger sanctions on Iran.

[edit on 6/23/2008 by mrmonsoon]



posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by mrmonsoon
 


This is the problem I have with the entire "Iranian Threat" argument so far--this is not just for mrmonsoon:

You dodged the entire point of my argument and jumped at my semantics, while putting words in my mouth. No, I do not have a source for every news brief I hear in the radio on the way to work. All you had to do was listen to the speeches and press releases made on an almost daily basis.

You, like everyone else arguing your point, has failed to show Iran as a legitimate threat.

Verbal threats and chest pumping, is shown as reason to premptivley strike, yet other nations do the same, and it is ignored or encouraged.

Iran's (a 'radical' nation) ambition for nuclear technology is often the argument for military intervention/international pressure and sanctions. More than one nations government calling for the immediate halt of Irans nuclear infastructure. Yet we are helping Saudi Arabia develop their nuclear technology in a very active way.

Don't give me the, "Iran is sitting on oil, why would they need nuclear technology, if not for weapons" argument. It is as lame as an excuse as citing their desire for nuclear arms.


Saudi Arabia has poured money into developing its vast reserves of natural gas for domestic electricity production. It continues to invest in a national gas transportation pipeline and stepped-up exploration, building a solid foundation for domestic energy production that could meet its electricity needs for many decades. Nuclear energy, on the other hand, would require enormous investments in new infrastructure by a country with zero expertise in this complex technology.


link

Iran does it and it is one step below international terror. Saudi Arabia does the exact same thing, and they recieve our full support.

There is an obvious double standard; it has never been anything more than simply repeating two points which are crap.

Iran is no more a radical/nuclear threat than Saudi Arabia, yet only one is painted as the boogyman; and for intentions which others insist he has.

Don't you stop and ask why? Or is this going to have to be a repeat of Iraq before people start to open their eyes.

We have even less proof of an Iranian threat then we did for Iraq, and that war was sold on lies and bad information. But by all means, lets see the threat that isn't there because we are told it exists.

And why do we keep trusting those who have done everything to not hold that confidence. We were repeatedly sold bad information and lies over and over, assuring us that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.


President Bush has said Iraq has weapons of mass destruction; Tony Blair has said Iraq has weapons of mass destruction; Donald Rumsfeld has said Iraq has weapons of mass destruction; Richard Butler has said they do; the United Nations has said they do; the experts have said they do. Iraq says they don't. You can choose who you want to believe.


whitehouse.gov

Why should they be any more correct about Irans, intentions?

Or is hindsight something which wears off on an annual basis?



[edit on 6/23/0808 by spines]



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by alienstar
 


How did the president of iran threaten the world. It is israel and the american government who continue to play the game pointing the media finger at iran and making out of context reports to inflame the nations into following israel and the american government into a battle on iranian soil no one wants.



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by spines
 


I agree with you iran is no threat. The real threat of WMD in iraq was they traded oil for euros and not dollars. Same thing iran is doing now and must suffer the same WMD fate as iraq.

We need to burn these people down for lieing about WMD, nuclear weapon charges and everything else they perpertrate on people and countries of the world.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join