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 rules out suspending enrichment program

page: 3
5
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by The_Alarmist2012
 


I do believe since Bush thinks he gave Israel the ok to bomb if talks fail then he gets away free of any repercussions of the backlash.

Headline News
Sunday, July 13, 2008 Israel Today Staff

Bush gives Israel tentative 'OK' to strike Iran

www.israeltoday.co.il...




posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by alienstar
 


There may be US reluctance to strike at Iran's nuclear facilities, and for good reason, however the opposite could be true for the Israelis, the task may be holding back Israeli strikes. If Israel does initiate these strikes alone, the US military will be compelled to support them.

Then?



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by The_Alarmist2012
 


Well if Israel dont get us support and they go ahead with bombing the sites.Obvious they wont be able to penetrate the ground where the core of all it is.Then Iran rebuilds the facilities in a few years with min damage.Us bunkerbusters would be the only suited weapon to do it.Now if we secretly gave Israel these bunker busters already well then no problem.Israel is itchy no matter what to attack but i think that was back when we would support in a joint strike.Now seems they are reluctant according to reports with without us support.The question is why did Bush go ahead and give Israel the ok to bomb if talks fail?Cause in my mind since we sell military equipment to Israel,then we already gave them the bunker busters to do the job.

So Israel takes them out if talks fail and succeeds.Bush thinks he gets away with all of this.Sounds like a master plan to me.I don't think Russia will defend Iran against a Israeli reactor strike.And if they do then we are drawn into it as well.We already stated we would defend Israel.It either works or don't work.

[edit on 19-7-2008 by alienstar]



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by alienstar
So Israel takes them out if talks fail and succeeds.Bush thinks he gets away with all of this.Sounds like a master plan to me.I don't think Russia will defend Iran against a Israeli reactor strike.And if they do then we are drawn into it as well.We already stated we would defend Israel.It either works or don't work.


Interesting thoughts.


So Israel attacks Iran as a part of some secret plan by the US (Bush Admin.) by proxy bringing the US into the conflict, Bush enacts the war powers act, starts world war three and remains in office?



My head is spinning now.



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 07:29 PM
link   
Its not actually a secret plan for Israel to attack Iran.The military stated it can't afford another war...man power,money or the resources...since we are already on two fronts.Israel wants to attack the reactors no matter whats the cost,since they believe they are there to make nuclear weapons.So Bush stated if talks fail then go ahead with the bombing of the reactors alone.Israel did release a article they wont attack without Bush's approval.

Israel Won't Attack Iran Without US Nod
www.thenation.com...

The only secret part is Israel don't have the technology to penetrate the ground to really take the reactors out for good.You can search this anyplace for info.So why the amber light for Israel to strike?They must have the bunker buster given by us to do it.Its the only thing that makes sense.So Bush gets his agenda of Irans reactors gone before office and hopefully there is no backlash from the world with Israel doing the strike alone.


There is no reason for Bush to give the ok for Israel to strike Iran unless they have the technology to do so.Make sense now?At least my theory...don't mean that other people have to view it like me.





[edit on 19-7-2008 by alienstar]



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by alienstar
 


I find your theories quite interesting, I suppose it is ultimately a wait and see thing now.

Today we see news of a "one last shot" failed attempt at a diplomatic solution, Bush has previously given Israel approval to strike if talks fail, so it literally could be just a matter of time now.

Personally I wish we'd just cut the losses and get the hell out of the middle east all together, and soon.

But we know that is not going to happen now, they will find someway to perpetuate war and conflict there as long as the land produces oil, and Israel is threatened.



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 07:53 PM
link   
reply to post by The_Alarmist2012
 


I wished God created mankind's mind to never breed hate or war.Then again thats a whole other topic.I don't hate anyone but we live in different areas of the world with different views,religions,and agendas in life.Without war....there can't be peace sometimes.There is a whole other point of view to all this of thats going to build up when i really think into it.This Iran war everyone knows we can't avoid but i wished we could.Time will of course take its own course.



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 07:58 PM
link   
If this is Bush's real agenda then in my opinion he is failing to see something. Say Isreal goes ahead with thier plans to take out Iran's reactor's........that's fine they toss thier bombs and blow it to piece's......this is where I get worried.

Let's say two weeks after the initial attacks, Russia makes good on thier claim to defend Iran, they toss one of thier nuke down Islreal's throat, now Bush has no choice but defend Isreal......now we have two super powers going at it. This then leads to......


That's right que the Korean's and China, only problem there is noone really knows which side they will take, As for China it seems simple, they will take the side of whomever they feel can win the battle. As for the Korean's who really know's what they would do.

Let's not also forget Pakastan, I have a hard time believing they would not throw in if this whole thing goes down like that.

But as a previous posts said maybey this is what Bush really wants. Everything escalates into a struggle amongst the World power (USA, Russia, China), and in that he is able to activate his powers and retaincontrol over America for as long "As the president see's fit"

Now alot of things would have to happen for it to go down like that, and i for one do have a hard time thinking that world leaders really want something like this to go down, but my question is this. Does my theory really seem far fetched or does it seem to have all the pieces falling right into place for this to happen.

Remeber when bush's daddy could not get the russians he went for the next best thing....Iraq, and everyone knows, Bush jr here just loves to finish off his daddies unfinished jobs. Who know perhaps Bush is just praying and waiting for the Russian's to pop in.

I for one am scared to awaken the Bear personally. Most intelligence agencies still classify the Russian army and tactics to be second only to USA, and as for brute force and manpower, well that reward goes to China.

[edit on 7/19/0808 by Trayen11]

[edit on 7/19/0808 by Trayen11]



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 08:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Trayen11
 


I think Bush knows this and thats why he wants no part in this attack and i think he is just playing stupid hoping Russia defending Iran is just past news.Does anyone think this is just a coincidence that the us may reopen the us embassy in Iran?

Friday, July 18, 2008

US May Reopen Embassy in Iran

In a dramatic shift of Bush administration policy, the US plans to establish a diplomatic presence in Tehran, the first step in establishing a full embassy in Iran for the first time since the hostage crisis in 1979.



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 08:23 PM
link   

The U.S. attempts to get China and Russia to mediate with Iran to end the fighting, but they refuse to do Washington any favors, noting that they had opposed the attack in the first place. Suicide bombers attack London, Washington, New York, and Los Angeles. The attacks are poorly planned and inflict only a few casualties, but panic sets in and the public demands that the respective governments do something. The U.S. tells the Iranian government that unless resistance ceases, nuclear weapons will be used on select targets. India and Pakistan are alarmed by the U.S. threat and put their own nuclear forces on high alert, as does Israel. Russia and China also increase their readiness levels to respond to the crisis.



The United States uses a neutron-type bomb against the main Iranian nuclear research center at Natanz, which it had already bombed conventionally and destroyed. It vows to bomb again if Iran continues to resist. Iran is defiant and fires another wave of Silkworms at U.S. ships, sinking one. Suicide bombers hit U.S. targets in Iraq and Afghanistan. Russia and China place their nuclear forces on high alert. Pakistani militants take over parliament, aided by radical elements in the army and the intelligence service. India launches a preemptive strike against the main Pakistani nuclear centers at Wah and Multan, where the country's arsenal is believed to be concentrated. Pakistan has hidden some of its nukes elsewhere, however, and is able to strike back by bombing New Delhi. World War III has begun.

What World War III May Look Like - Philip Giraldi

Chilling, and definitely worth a read...

Who knows what might happen?



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 08:28 PM
link   
reply to post by chips
 


Yeah i read those as well.Maybe this is a well thought out master plan to do something.I think pretty much the us using any nukes on Iran is well out of the question.It was stated before in 2004 and 05 that Bush did elect to use mini nukes to take out the reactors.There is actually a military plan that was drawn up you can find online i believe.



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 09:00 PM
link   
I dont think the US has to do anything and i dont think Russia will defend Iran in an Israeli strike. Remember that Yes while Russia could obliterate Israel with nukes, do they want to have Israel hit right back at them with nukes? I dont think Russia will defend Iran knowing that if they do anything that Israel can nuke Russia right back. Its just not worth it for Russia. All the while the US is just lying there in the cut not having to do a thing.



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 09:05 PM
link   
Well the MAIN fallacy in all that is that NEUTRON bombs do NOTHING to infrastructure but do kill lots of people. They leave cars, buildings etc completely intact. Think of it as a giant microwave...the food gets cooked, but the bowl remains unchanged.

So why on earth use neutron bombs to attack a hardened nuclear facility? Especially if it is already destroyed anyway? Whats the purpose?

I swear people write stuff just because it sounds good and to sensationalize a situation wuithout even know any facts.



Originally posted by chips

The U.S. attempts to get China and Russia to mediate with Iran to end the fighting, but they refuse to do Washington any favors, noting that they had opposed the attack in the first place. Suicide bombers attack London, Washington, New York, and Los Angeles. The attacks are poorly planned and inflict only a few casualties, but panic sets in and the public demands that the respective governments do something. The U.S. tells the Iranian government that unless resistance ceases, nuclear weapons will be used on select targets. India and Pakistan are alarmed by the U.S. threat and put their own nuclear forces on high alert, as does Israel. Russia and China also increase their readiness levels to respond to the crisis.



The United States uses a neutron-type bomb against the main Iranian nuclear research center at Natanz, which it had already bombed conventionally and destroyed. It vows to bomb again if Iran continues to resist. Iran is defiant and fires another wave of Silkworms at U.S. ships, sinking one. Suicide bombers hit U.S. targets in Iraq and Afghanistan. Russia and China place their nuclear forces on high alert. Pakistani militants take over parliament, aided by radical elements in the army and the intelligence service. India launches a preemptive strike against the main Pakistani nuclear centers at Wah and Multan, where the country's arsenal is believed to be concentrated. Pakistan has hidden some of its nukes elsewhere, however, and is able to strike back by bombing New Delhi. World War III has begun.

What World War III May Look Like - Philip Giraldi

Chilling, and definitely worth a read...

Who knows what might happen?











posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 09:10 PM
link   
reply to post by princeofpeace
 


Why would Israel not want to bomb without a joint strike?They don't have the weapons.This is a thought out process-



#

RAAS AND LONG focus exclusively on feasibility, not political desirability or strategic ramifications: Were the Israeli national command to decide to damage the Iranian infrastructure, could its forces accomplish this mission? The authors consider five components of a successful strike:

# Intelligence: To impede the production of fissile material requires incapacitating only three facilities of Iran's nuclear infrastructure. In ascending order of importance, these are: the heavy water plant and plutonium production reactors under construction at Arak, a uranium conversion facility in Isfahan, and a uranium enrichment facility at Natanz. Destroying the Natanz facility in particular, they note, "is critical to impeding Iran's progress toward nuclearization."

# Ordinance: To damage all three facilities with reasonable confidence requires - given their size, their being underground, the weapons available to the Israeli forces, and other factors - 24 5,000-lb. weapons and 24 2,000-lb. weapons.

# Platforms: Noting the "odd amalgamation of technologies" available to the Iranians and the limitations of their fighter planes and ground defenses to stand up to the hi-tech Israeli air force, Raas-Long calculate that the IDF needs a relatively small strike package of 25 F-15Is and 25 F-16Is.

# Routes: Israeli jets can reach their targets via three paths: Turkey to the north, Jordan and Iraq in the middle, or Saudi Arabia to the south. In terms of fuel and cargo, the distances in all three cases are manageable.

# Defense forces: Rather than predict the outcome of an Israeli-Iranian confrontation, the authors calculate, for the operation to succeed, how many out of the 50 Israeli planes would have to reach their three targets. They figure 24 planes must reach Natanz, six Isfahan, and five Arak, or 35 all together. Turned around, that means the Iranian defenders minimally must stop 16 of 50 planes, or one-third of the strike force. The authors consider this attrition rate "considerable" for Natanz and "almost unimaginable" for the other two targets.


Theyhave "a reasonable chance of success" to unilaterally destroy key Iranian nuclear facilities could help deter Teheran from proceeding with its weapon program.


Thats reasonable.Not SUCCESSFUL chance.

They need to get down deep and this is why Bush gave the ok to attack Iran..this was from a 2004 transfer of weapons to Israel.Don't mean more transfers werent made either during that time.Makes compete sense to me.


U.S. to transfer high-tech arsenal to Israel Strike against Iranian reactors is feared Thursday, September 23, 2004 - The transfer also includes 2,500 2,000-pound Mark-84 bombs, 500 1,000-pound Mark-83 bombs, 1,500 500-pound Mark-82 bombs and live fuses. All the bombs are being fitted with the Joint Direct Air Munitions kit, which uses inertial guidance and beacons from U.S. military global positioning satellites for deadly accuracy.



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 09:16 PM
link   
reply to post by princeofpeace
 


Sorry bro that wasn't meant to be directed towards you.My mistake.

I hit the reply button without looking.



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 09:40 PM
link   
As from another thread why would 500,000 plastic coffins to be ordered another guy pointed out that Iran is exactly strategically located between Afghanistan and Iraq as we spent the last 6 years occupied in them both.This is all weird stuff.Just some interesting thoughts for you all.



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 09:50 PM
link   
Best case NOTHING happens for the remainder of the Bush admin. term, and the lesser of two evils Obama wins, is able to reach some agreement with Iran, pull out of Iraq and perhaps peace can then prevail.

I wouldn't bet on it, but that would be a great option to war.

Then again Obama is on a trip to the middle east, meeting with military commanders and may be convinced that war is the best option, staying in Iraq is necessary.

There have been democratic members of congress who changed position on a pull out after visiting the region.

It could ultimately be up to Israel, we'd follow their lead.



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 09:51 PM
link   
If Iran wants Ultimatum, then we should send them some airmail...Nuke them.



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bejing
If Iran wants Ultimatum, then we should send them some airmail...Nuke them.


That's the exact kind of thinking that going to cause a major meltdown and perhap a global war.

I've said it before and i'll say it again, any country or world power that posseses nuclear weapons and the means to deploy them whenever they see fit reallty have no right telling others that they can't have them either. I mean honestly how would USA, Russia, China, Pakistan, or any other nuclear country react if say oh i don't know.......Iran or Iraq turned to them and said. "You know we dont really feel comfortable knowing you guys can make and deploy nuclear weapons.....so....please stop it.


Yeah thats right, they would tell them to go f*ck themselves, which i'm sorry but is basically what Iran is saying to everyone right now, and in my eyes that is thier right to do so.



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 10:15 PM
link   
reply to post by The_Alarmist2012
 


I think people are in for a shock with Obama elected as president.He also recently stated he would transfer funds to Afghanistan as they are more unstable then Iraq and lacking the force and manpower as the taliban forces increase there with recruitment size.Obama is green on world views and military options.Pulling out of Iraq is a horrible idea..They have to stay there until the dust settles and the country is stabilized.Pulling out now would only lead to government and political downfall,civil wars,takeovers and genocide.Obama wants to worry more about our countries nuclear reactor rods missing then other countries which is a huge terroristic mistake undertaking.With national security the only thing he cares about is clean drinking water.Not saying Mccain is much better.But hes no pushover with world view..military interactions,nuclear forces and national security.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join