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.

 

Iran: Time running out over nuke issue

page: 1
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 25 2008 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Iran: Time running out over nuke issue


www.cnn.com

Iran's powerful speaker of parliament Wednesday warned other countries not to provoke Iran and cautioned against moves that would "cost them heavily."

Ali Larijani also recommended that Western nations consider the recent comments from U.N. nuclear watchdog chief Mohamed ElBaradei, who on Saturday said a strike on Iran would turn the Middle East into a fire ball.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jun, 25 2008 @ 02:44 PM
link   
More posturing by Iran. Each side keeps warning each other, I am just waiting to turn on the news and see bombing on TV. Will it happen today, tomorrow or next week?

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



posted on Jun, 25 2008 @ 03:33 PM
link   
These are just a few of the warnings and threats made by Iran in today's news...

"We advise you to take Mr. ElBaradei's warnings seriously and not to be after provoking Iran. In that case, you will face our predestined action and returning to interaction will become impossible for you,"

"a little time was left for having interaction with Iran"

"If we feel that you are making decisions unilaterally and are using negotiations as an instrument to justify your illegal actions, be certain that the process will change," he said. "This is the path you have chosen to step in and the responsibility of consequences will be yours."

"Do not add to the cost you should pay with making wrong assessments"

"be careful lest they face a new catastrophe."

and my favorite...

"Our last word is that if you want to head toward Iran, be sure to bring with you a walking stick and a pair of artificial legs, because if you do come to Iran you will no longer have legs to go back home with."

They also warned that any nation participating in isolating Iran would "pay heavily."

This all spoken by a country without a nuclear weapon to back up their world-terrorizing words.

So to anyone willing to let Iran acquire a nuclear arsenal, get ready to cower under your beds every night as they threaten your infidel country with annihilation. You think they are loudmouthed idiots now? Just wait.



posted on Jun, 25 2008 @ 03:36 PM
link   
Any assault on Iran is about controlling the Iranian oilfields just as the Iraqi invasion was about doing the bidding of Royal Dutch Shell, BP, and Exxon to take over the Iraqi's oil.

The rest is theatre performed by ugly people.



posted on Jun, 25 2008 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by super70
These are just a few of the warnings and threats made by Iran in today's news...

...

This all spoken by a country without a nuclear weapon to back up their world-terrorizing words.

So to anyone willing to let Iran acquire a nuclear arsenal, get ready to cower under your beds every night as they threaten your infidel country with annihilation. You think they are loudmouthed idiots now? Just wait.


Do you like to twist the truth 180 degrees ? Iran is not terrorizing the world, it's the US and Israel who are threatening to attack Iran on no hard evidence grounds, not the other way around. Didnt you learn from the Iraq blunder ? Please don't spread your sickening distortions on this board devoted to truth-seeking.



posted on Jun, 25 2008 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pellevoisin
Any assault on Iran is about controlling the Iranian oilfields just as the Iraqi invasion was about doing the bidding of Royal Dutch Shell, BP, and Exxon to take over the Iraqi's oil.


Then where's my 25 cent a gallon gas?



posted on Jun, 25 2008 @ 04:07 PM
link   


Do you like to twist the truth 180 degrees ? Iran is not terrorizing the world, it's the US and Israel who are threatening to attack Iran on no hard evidence grounds, not the other way around.

Please don't spread your sickening distortions on this board devoted to truth-seeking.


Iran is not terrorizing the world, well not yet. They are only capable of "warning and threatening" at this point, but once they have the bomb they can begin actual terrorizing.



Didnt you learn from the Iraq blunder ?


I think that we learned 2 things.
A. Pinpoint bombing of madmen into oblivion: effective.
B. Occupying miles and miles of sand: pointless.

No one is talking about occupying Iran's magnificent dirt fields.
Just plan A.



[edit on 25-6-2008 by super70]



posted on Jun, 25 2008 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by super70
Then where's my 25 cent a gallon gas?


Unless you own a stake in Big Oil, you've got Bupkus coming your way. They'll hurt and kill the Iranians and make you bleed at the pump, and then they'll pocket all the change.



posted on Jun, 25 2008 @ 06:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Pellevoisin
 


Ummmm... then wheres the oil?



posted on Jun, 25 2008 @ 06:41 PM
link   
reply to post by ergoli
 


No hard evidence.. how about we take their word for it when they say they will wipe Israel off the face of the earth.



posted on Jun, 25 2008 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Pellevoisin
 


Microsoft has about a 26% profit margin, rounding up big oil has 9% and pricing is controlled by opec. If they were making so much money from Iraq oil? why do they want to drill here. Maybe because profits would be larger and not controlled by opec.



posted on Jun, 25 2008 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by super70
 


Hah, just because they own it, doesnt mean they are going to give it to you cheaper.

Dude, these are corporations.

The same corporations who make multi billion dollar profits, yet find a reason to increase your oil 200%

...... where's my cheap oil.

Ignorance at its finest.



posted on Jun, 25 2008 @ 06:50 PM
link   
Ah, i see the voices of dissent have already been heard by those with the power to shape the world.

And i do mean shaping the world in a literal sense - with nukes.

If we did go into Iran, i think that the chances of a nuke going off somewhere (out of the tens of thousands dotted here and there all over the planet) will be that much higher, especially if they have infact been selling nuclear materials to one or two warlords.

Let's look at this from another angle;

The only thing that stops an all-out war from breaking out between the east and the west is the fact that both the east and the west have nuclear weapons.

This is why you don't see people picking on countries like North Korea and Pakistan.

However, with countries such as Iran (and Iraq at one point... probably) whereby it is uncertain whether or not they possess nuclear weapons, it would seem the Bush administration is more than happy to go charging in as if they didn't.

We only won the Iraq war because they didn't have WMDs.



posted on Jun, 25 2008 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Agit8dChop
 


There roughly 8% profit has maintained through the war. If they can produce it and send it to the market cheaper and don't then i will buy your story. This system clearly is broke, lets at least try another that we in the U.S. can control.



posted on Jun, 25 2008 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Anti-Tyrant
 


Would you rather we wait until Iran has the weapons, fires them at Isreal who retaliates along with possibly us which causes another country to retaliate and so on or........Launch not a war but a strike at their reactors?



posted on Jun, 25 2008 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by anotherdad
Launch not a war but a strike at their reactors?


I'm saying that picking a fight with guys who we think have nukes may not be a good idea.

It's kinda like punching a brick wall.



posted on Jun, 25 2008 @ 07:20 PM
link   
I tend to think Iran has had nukes for some time. I find it hard to believe that the pakistani technology disseminated by AQ Khan in the '80's didn't go to Iran. You've got Syria building plutonium reactors, but Iran doesn't have a bomb? This is just their attempt to go public without being attacked IMO.

They would like to have their deterrent without the announcement actually starting a war. Unfortunately, the West will not allow it. Therefore, the response is going to be uglier than we know.



posted on Jun, 25 2008 @ 07:25 PM
link   
reply to post by anotherdad
 


Oh, for crying out loud, how many times has this been debunked?

He never said that...
He never said that...
He never said that...
He never said that...
He never said that...
He never said that...
He never said that...
He never said that...
He never said that...
He never said that...
He never said that...
He never said that...

Get it now? Probably not, I'm sure I'll be saying it again at some point.

reply to post by super70
 


So, if we put the boot on the other foot for a second and just examine the hypocrisy here...

Imagine it was the US under threat by a foreign power for their Nuclear activities. The US insists it is peaceful and they don't want a bomb. However, the foreign power doesn't believe you and slaps you with sanctions and makes not-so-veiled threats against the US.

What would the US response be after years of threats and intimidation, despite your co-operation and submission to inspections?

Probably something like:

"Our last word is that if you want to head toward the USA, be sure to bring with you a walking stick and a pair of artificial legs, because if you do come to the USA you will no longer have legs to go back home with."

Yet the Iranians say it and all of a sudden it's deemed they are crazy now, so they must be bombed!!!

Go figure...

[edit on 25/6/08 by stumason]



posted on Jun, 25 2008 @ 07:41 PM
link   
I really don't look at what people say, typically all of the quoted reports turn out to be false.

So lets look at what they're doing.

They're not invading anyone.
They're not launching weapons across borders.
They're not attacking anyone at all.
They don't possess a delivery system for a nuclear weapon, and most estimates for their possible creation of a warhead place the it as being ready... near 2020!
They don't possess an invasionary force, they are equipped and trained for defense.

Simply put, they aren't a threat, and they aren't going to be a threat.
However, their military is designed to be VERY good at crushing an invading army within their own border.

Now lets look at those who want to invade Iran.
They are threatening to invade.
They have attacked other countries in the region.
They are launching cross border raids.
They DO possess both nuclear warheads and the delivery systems ready to deploy them, enough of them to wipe the species off the planet.


I'm sorry, but actions speak louder than words, and these actions tell me it ain't Iran who's insane.

[edit on 25-6-2008 by johnsky]



posted on Jun, 25 2008 @ 07:52 PM
link   
Iran does possess a delivery payload in the form of three-stage rockets that are able to carry multiple nuclear warheads. If they are to acquire Nukes, they will no doubt use it in a threatening manner because their government is a radical Islamic Theocracy.

The three-stage rockets are modified No Dong III missles from Korea.

Iran with Nukes is like a 4 year old with an AK-47, it just wouldn't go well.




top topics



 
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join