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.


Biden: Israel should accept nuclear Iran

page: 7
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 11:43 AM

Originally posted by feydrautha

Originally posted by yellowcard

This is pretty spot on, except I would say that Iran is not very friendly and we should definitely tread with caution. The Middle East is mostly screwed up because of the UK...there is no doubt about that.

the uk? really? erm, how so...

it would of course, have nothing to do with the death cult; islam, would it?

read the koran and hadith, and then connect the dots...

"ahh! so thats why... now i see!"

knowledge is power.

If you know anything about history, Iraq used to not be one nation, it was separated by the tribes into different nations...then the UK merged them when they left the area and then the tribes started disagreeing about the country's politics and committing genocide against the others so suppress their voices...Saddam was put in power, etc. That's just ONE example...and if the U.S. was smart they would just split Iraq into tribal nations. That's how you can achieve stability in that portion of the region.

[edit on 3-9-2008 by yellowcard]

posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 11:53 AM
reply to post by budski

great find and so true. It goes way back when Iran decided to fight colonialism and (god forbids!)
chose not to become a UK/US puppet state. Since it has been a "paria state" full of extremists and radical islamist who want to attack us and our allies...give me a break!
Look at the fate of Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea and others all tof them are "evil rogue states" that refuse to fall under the NWO agenda - cough sorry freedom and democracy!
Such things sadly, are major turn ons for neocons. They love to play the big bullies and really think they can get the world to do as they please. and too damn many fall for their lies or are of the same type of people.

posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 12:11 PM
reply to post by feydrautha

You didn't answer my question. Can you provide his actual quote?

You're adamant about believing someone else tell you that he said it, but you're not willing to look into the direct quote itself?

posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 12:17 PM

Originally posted by tyranny22

The fact is, you're afraid of Iran because someone told you to be. Someone twisted a leader's words and you fell for it. Now you believe that Iran is the big bad wolf and you'll support anyone hell bent on "liberating" this evil country.

[edit on 2-9-2008 by tyranny22]

I'm not fooled by the eyes rolling up in the head and eyelashbatting, jiihad yelling, islamic. Iraq is a swing state and when palestine swings the axe at Israel you can bet Iran will be in the thick of things. U.S. allies are too weak and too close for any one of the mid-eastern islamic states to become a military power. You cannot discount U.S. actions against the shah of Iran. And now, its suppose to be some ally to coddle. How about the U.S. war ship that was missled? I am not afraid of those people and I don't trust none of them. Especially "almonds islamic".

posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 12:26 PM
reply to post by rightwingnut

huh? [mods: I understand this is a one-line post - do what you have to]

posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 12:28 PM
I was thinking the same thing tyranny22!

posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 12:37 PM
reply to post by douglas2k4

Yeah. LOL.

I couldn't tell if that was a "for" or "against" statement. Either way, I welcome the debate ... I just couldn't get a legible stance with which to retort.

posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 12:42 PM
Hopefully he will reply with a more "concise" arguement, LOL.

posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 01:28 PM
Yeah, with over 24 different tribes of islam and the U.S. willing to use any of them as a key to the fuel closet why shouldn't they continue to flip-flop on Iran.

Our trouble is that we have been attacked time and time again by this sometime ally. Sen. Joe thinks its time to set up the next attack.

Now,we the people, should trust sen. joe and trust these people again. He believes israel should do so after having a missle attack fired from these mid-east countries. I think sen. joe needs to have more concern for,we the people.

Iran may be a puppet state of the U.S. but Israel is not and I still stand behind that one line statement: "I don't trust none of those people"

[edit on 3-9-2008 by rightwingnut]

posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 02:58 PM
reply to post by rightwingnut

I agree. Much of the rhetoric toward Iran seems to be in accordance with keeping the American people frightened and confused with double-talk and endless propaganda.

I haven't heard any politician's statements towards Iran that remains consistent and seems whole-hearted.

Of course, we have McCain who just wants to be Mr. Tough Guy and openly jokes about bombing Iran: "You know that old Beach Boys song, Bomb Iran? Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran." But, he's supposed to be conservative? How about saving some of that money from the War Chest and paying down the national debt. Of course he doesn't feel the economic strain that Average Joe feels. He's admittedly just shy of being "rich". He even displays his ignorance on the subject of terrorism when he makes the outrageous claim that Iran is training Al-Qaeda.

And on the other hand we have Obama - not to be left out of the "Tough Guy Club" - calling for direct, open talks with Iran, yet leaves everything "on the table" saying, "I think we have a window now that needs to be taken advantage of, ... A nuclear Iran would pose a grave threat and the world must prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon."

I refuse to take either side (left or right) in this political conundrum we're calling "Decision 2008". It's one big farce, if you ask me. One in which we end up with the same outcome - no matter which candidate is elected to the White House.

[edit on 3-9-2008 by tyranny22]

posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 04:26 PM
reply to post by Anonymous ATS

Wow, how many times does Iran have to declare annhilation of the Jew, and yet people want to believe that Iran wants only peaceful Nuclear?
Biden scares me as much as Obama! I always have thought he is a bit naive. And he has to be naive if he takes this posture while still claiming to support Israel's right to exist.

Beware Obamaites. This is a scarry view of what's to come.

posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 05:01 PM
I always wonder if some of the hate for Iran on the far right isn't driven by raw jealousy.

After all, the Iranians already have a theocratic state run by crazy fundamentalists... the rightwingers in the US have been trying to impose one here for decades, with no luck.

It's envy, pure & simple

posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 06:10 PM

Originally posted by tyranny22
reply to post by feydrautha

OK, after making my points above ... tell me - regarding this post - does Iran REALLY want to develop nuclear weapons? Or are we just believing what the war machine wants us to? Who really knows?

In all honesty: Hind sight is 20/20. There's no real way to know whether or not Iran plans to develop nuclear weapons. We've sat on our asses for years and let North Korea slap us in the face by detonating a nuclear weapon. India has nukes. Pakistan has nukes.

We've all been lead to believe Iran is a "terrorist state." Maybe they are. Maybe they're not. But, don't get upset when I don't swallow the second round of war propaganda hook, line and sinker from the same sources that fed it to me the first round.

All I know is that this preemptive aggression is one of the reasons (along with having military bases on foreign soil) we were attacked on 9/11 and that's the REAL reason we're in this "war on terror" in the first place.

It's a continual cycle ... and isn't that just great for those that are profiting from this war.

iraq once had a weapons enrichment facility, under the guise of 'nuclear power plant'

it was bombed by israel, then by iran, and finally by the states during desert storm

pre 9/11 the wmd capability of iraq wasnt a concern, afterward, it was a big concern

india has not threatened genocide with their nukes, pakistan? well, i'm sure its no secret that they're aimed directly at india

north korea was handled properly, and it worked; success.

does iran want nukes?

its funny that that is even a question, why would they not want nukes?

that may be a better framed question...

the nigerian deal was the best intel available at the time, right or wrong, all our allies believed it, only the states had the stones to do something about it.



we cannot use the word:

n i g e r i a n ?

is that a joke?


[edit on 3-9-2008 by feydrautha]

posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 06:14 PM

Originally posted by yellowcard
If you know anything about history, Iraq used to not be one nation, it was separated by the tribes into different nations...then the UK merged them when they left the area and then the tribes started disagreeing about the country's politics and committing genocide against the others so suppress their voices...Saddam was put in power, etc. That's just ONE example...and if the U.S. was smart they would just split Iraq into tribal nations. That's how you can achieve stability in that portion of the region.
[edit on 3-9-2008 by yellowcard]

that is interesting, but a united iraq seems logically more stable, well, at least eventually

saddam showed that one way to achieve stability is to put a ruthless despot in charge, which the culture there responded well to...

we'll see if self government works, but i suspect that when we leave, the country will be plunged into chaos until a saddam re-tread emerges victoriously...

freedom cannot be handed to people who dont want it, it has to be fought for...

posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 07:15 PM
This is the part that still alarms me, "Joe Biden The pro-Israeli Senator"

And on the other side you have "Lie"berman

There is always something there - in the background controlling the "thing that should not be"

Besides the Elite British Bloodline Bankers hasn't that "The pro-Israeli Senator" been the problem with foreign policy all along?

Almost a million Iraqi's dead
Downing street
Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson - Iraq WMD lie
Rice talking about mushroom clouds

The two party system doesn't exist - its meant to pull the wool over our eyes an give/buy them another 4 years of this failed economic and conflict nightmare. Then another 4 years! Then we fall for the Congress and Senate change again and it goes nowhere just like before!

We are in a Quagmire with our own representatives and nothing will change until we distance ourselves from these family ties and hand selected patsies!

We need extreme before it is too late - Ron Paul, Jesse Ventura, Dennis Kucinich! These true patriots and elected leaders have been warning us about these lies in politics!

They have all warned us that our Nation has been hijacked by these elite families and their ties to Nazi imperialism and banking control!

They are using McCain and Obama to open the door for Nazi son Arnold Schwarzenegger and the fact he is foreign born.

Oh sure, McCain has the Panama military service clause - Obama has fooled everyone with his African (false Hawaii) birth

What are we doing?

This is America and our founding fathers are rolling in their graves!

The message is clear, act now or they will continue to destroy us from the inside out with their foreign bankrupting policy and the shipping of any tangible American manufacturing job overseas!

[edit on 3-9-2008 by arizonascott]

[edit on 3-9-2008 by arizonascott]

[edit on 3-9-2008 by arizonascott]

posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 01:40 AM
Edit; reply to post by budski

"It's not an argument as such, it's merely that I think there are two sides to this and that it's a little convenient to simply label Iran just because GWB said they part of an axis of evil - a term which gained an inordinate amount of press coverage and was simply a tool to use as an excuse for the economic imperialism practised by the bush administration.

You will not find me using this term "axis of evil" ever, so what does this have to do with me?
You'll be better off refering to the Presidents 2002 State of the Union Address inorder to better understand what he means by this term.

"The historical factors here are very important, in understanding why Iran has labelled the US "The Great Satan" with bush then coming up with his axis of evil bullplop."

This term was originally used by the Iranian leader Ruhollah Khomeini in his speech on November 5, 1979.
1)On November 4, 1979, President Carter agrees to admit the Shah of Iran into the US.

2)On November 4, 1979, militant Iranian students stormed the American Embassy in Tehran with the support of Ayatollah Khomeini. Fifty-two Americans were then held hostage for 444 days.

3)On November 5, 1979, Ruhollah Khomeini makes his speach and declares the US is, "the Great

I guess it could be said GWB didn't have anything to do with that.

I firmly believe that if we (US and UK) had not been interfering in the region in the way that we have, there would be little or no problem with Iran."

You maybe be right, you may be wrong. It's hard to say for sure.

It can easily be seen that Iran is quite happy to trade fairly with countries who don't have a history of massive interference - even the "lesser satan", Russia is now a major trading partner of Iran, as is china."

Yes, I bet the Irans leaders are quite happy considering the billions they've spent from oil revenues and oil sales for purchasing military hardware, nuclear technology and supplies, missles, missle technology tanks, fighter planes and other such things.

The Israel question also comes into play here, as the US is seen in the region as the big kid standing behind the playground bully, when Israel has been guilty of diabolical atrocities - so by defualt, supporters of Israel are tarred with the same brush, even if they hadn't a history of interference in the first place.

What are these diabolical atrocities you speak of? Could you be more specific plz.

In fact there is far more evidence to support the US as a major backer of terror organisations than there is Iran, and the US (and UK) have a much longer history of it."

Where's your evidence the United States is a backer of terror organizaions, and more so than Iran?

I'm really not interested in opinions, you've yet to provide any useful and factual information for me to do anything with, It would be a pointless waste of my time to continue our conversation further unless your next response had considerably more merit to it.


[edit on 4-9-2008 by 4x4fun]

posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 01:52 AM
reply to post by 4x4fun

This term was originally used by the Iranian leader Ruhollah Khomeini in his speech on November 5, 1979.

Your timeline completely ignores the fact that the only reason the Iranians got behind a nut like Khomeini (and learned to hate us so much) in the first place is because we'd overthrown their democratically-elected leader (because he'd dared to suggest Iran owned it's own oil) a quarter century earlier, and put a brutal totalitarian monarch in charge who ruled by means of a brutal secret police force who we trained.

Cute way to omit the essential facts

posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 05:06 AM
reply to post by 4x4fun

You could start by taking a look here and then investigating further - I'm not going to do your research for you

There's also the fact that the US armed OBL and "al qaeda" which again came back to bite them in the bum.

US sponsored terrorism in Iran

I don't accept the argument that when the US (and others) do it, it is looking after national interests - that's just a cop-out and a huge double standard.

The US (and allies) are pretty much a one trick pony when it comes to mideast policy - if they don't like a country's leaders, they are " a sponsor of terror" or if Israel has a problem with a country they have this label stuck on them.

The case of hezbollah is a good one - only SIX countries view hezbollah as a terrorist organisation, all of them US allies.

I am going to assume you are joking about not knowing Israeli atrocities - either that or incredibly biassed or ignorant.

A quick google search will reveal hundreds of acts of terror committed by a nation state - again, I'm not doing your research for you.

Could you also cite your reasons for Iran being a terrorist state which also sponsors terrorism?
NOT sponsoring insurgents - real terror groups, such as those sponsored by Saudi, a supposed US ally.

[edit on 4/9/2008 by budski]

posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 08:53 AM
For any of you interested, U-bah-ma in Farsi means "He's with us"

I'm not a conspiracy nut, but does make you wonder!

[edit on 4-9-2008 by theblunttruth]

posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 10:04 AM
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.

new topics

top topics

<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in