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.

 

Bush reportedly rejected Israeli plea to raid Iran

page: 2
10
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 11:19 AM
link   
Why the heck are we financing Isreal anyway?!?! What do we really have to do with them? Way back in the times of the Old testament of the bible, Isreal was fighting against evil empires and ruthless barbarians like the Philistines and so forth. Right now (thousands of years later) things have changed. I think Isreal is more or less the big bad empire now and the great-you-know-who is financingand empowering Isreal. You have people that beleive in God all around Isreal. Muslims,not barbarians! Who is to say that Isreal is the good guy and the others are the bad guys?? They both claim to beleive in God. I promise you this war is not in any of our interests. It is the work of conspiracy or else let me just ask you one question,,,,,,,,what the f--- are we helping Isreal for. Let the Gazans eat and protect themselves!




posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by WestPoint23
 


Would you like to point out what part of my post led you to assume 'irrational hatred'? It's been all over the MSM that Bush is seeking to improve his image before he leaves and has Rove working on it.

And what would make you think that not helping Israel bomb Iran is a good thing? You spineless peace-niks are the ones who need to grow up.
How's that boot taste btw?



posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 11:34 AM
link   
What amazes me is that even when word comes out that Bush actually prevented a strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, people still find a way to spin it into saying Bush intends to bomb Iran and start World War III.

How about you get the picture: there is no grand, New World Order conspiracy at work. Mistakes are/were made, but right decisions were made as well. Give credit when credit is due.



posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by resistor
And what would make you think that not helping Israel bomb Iran is a good thing?


I firmly believe that in due time Iran will develop its own organic democratic movement. We need to support such, overtly and covertly. Attacking Iran will not stop their drive for nuclear weapons, it will only increase it. We will have shown anything less than joining the "nuclear club" will not deter us from military action. Furthermore, we will inflame not only worldwide opinion but especially muslim opinion. Turning even those Iranians looking toward the US as a future friend against us. It will only solidify the power and position of the Mullah's as we will be fulfilling their prophecy for them. Not to mention the chaos in Iraq and Afghanistan.

With Obama we have a good chance at fostering that homegrown democratic movement. How terrible it would look for Iran to suppress its own people and to be distracted by internal issues. Slowly but surely this facade off gaining power by hating the "great Satan" and only focusing on external issues will collapse if the daily life of the average Iranian does not improve. Subsequently their domestic support for essentially dismissing any and all international proposals will diminish.



As for your MSM and Bush, what a joke. I guess they're trying to sell as much as possible knowing full well they have to tone down the rhetoric once the "messiah" enters office. At one point or another Rove, Cheney and Bush have been accused of pretty much everything, now they're trying to solidify their legacy?
Rove must be a magician working everywhere and on everything at once. He will make Bush look good (eternally) in a week, before he leaves office?
But just in case that's true the infallible MSM is using the Bush doctrine of pre-emtive action with their reports of it, right?

[edit on 11-1-2009 by WestPoint23]



posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Looks like they really are trying to "shore up and store up leverage" for Obama, knowing he will be seen more as a talker than a doer in that part of the world.

[edit on 11-1-2009 by WestPoint23]


I think to say he will be seen more as talker than a doer is a very shallow way of looking at it. For one, George W. Bush's reputation as a doer was earned after his invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Prior to that, he was not viewed as a doer, especially when one looks at his foreign policy platform during the 2000 Presidential Election. Furthermore, in the wake of the Iraq War, Bush hasn't been doing much "doing" lately.

In other words, I don't necessarily see Obama being perceived in the Middle East as being any more or less of a talker/doer than Bush was. The precedent has been pretty much set in the past eight years, and the U.S. and Iran are still adversaries. The Middle East would not necessarily change course until they see what Obama is truly made of.

Plus, we need more talkers in this world. Talking, after all, is doing.



posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
I think to say he will be seen more as talker than a doer is a very shallow way of looking at it.


With the current situation in Iraq and Afghanistan, the US economy and the election of a Democrat campaigning on "change", (emphasizing diplomacy) how else can that part of the world look at it? Most don't base their opinions on in depth character study, in depth analysis and debate from various news sources and government officials. We have this luxury, many in that part of the world do not. This might allow some leaders to perceive a little more breathing room in terms of what possible actions they might be able to take. Bush clearly has a reputation, defeat of his endorsed candidate and the election of one promising a new course for the US will not be interpreted as business as usual. Whether that reflects reality or not is questionable, and rightly so.


Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
The Middle East would not necessarily change course until they see what Obama is truly made of.


They are more likely to test Obama though, to see exactly what he's made out of. They would likely not have carried out such adventures under a continued Bush rule.

[edit on 11-1-2009 by WestPoint23]



posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by WestPoint23
 



I'm as cynical about the MSM as you are, probably much more so, but it does make sense that the most unpopular Pres in history would spend a little time and energy working on image as he prepares to ride off into the stage backdrop. Clinton did the same thing. It's just what you would expect.

And now for what's really important. Your Sheagles taking down the G-aints.



posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by BorgHoffen
Yeah, he only rejects it, because of his political aspirations.
Otherwise he would have rode the chopper in with the assault.


wrong,,, he would hide back in the states,,,

have you not seen threads on his national guard record,,,,,where he was hidden and protected?????

no,, he is a coward

[edit on 11-1-2009 by shortywarn]



posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 12:47 PM
link   
According to the officials, the covert operations included renewed US espionage activities against Iran's nuclear infrastructure and efforts to undermine the country's www.presstv.ir... systems and computer networks.

now we may know who is behind all these undersea cable breaks ehh????



posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
reply to post by resistor
 


Jeez, some people really are driven by irrational hatred for Bush. He can't do anything right, anything seemingly right is false, and anything seemingly positive is for legacy purposes only. Grow up.


We don't just hate Bush, we hate anyone who sends others to die over their agendas and then hem haw around what they're really up to while the least of us are made to suffer in one way or another if we don't disclose anything about ourselves, even if it's just our name or social security number. You grow up. Educate yourself. Truth is immutable. It cannot be added to or taken from. If it can, then, it is not truth. As for America and others not wanting War with Iran, we plan it every day. The problem is what it would take to pull it off and how to deal with the inevitable aftermath. As to why, who really knows. They say it's over Iran's nuclear ambitions and it's high number of Centrifuges which they claim are not online, but which, I suspect they are really up and running. What better way to usher in a Global Alliance World Order a real or percieved nuclear battle with the US, Israel, Iran, China, Russia, and others to lead to an innevitable Global Nuclear Disarmament and Global Alliance Treaty. It's the stuff Corporate Dreams are made of. Where there's money there's power. Where there's wealth there's security. And what better Global Corporate Security than Global Military. And I bet you'd then say, you guys just hate the World coming together for a noble cause and still tell us to grow up while you went to the store to have your eye exam'd to buy some groceries. Just saying. If they really worried about Iran having Centrifuges, why then in 1995 did President Bill Clinton trade Iran some 10's of thousands of Centrifuges (the ones they have today), plus the professional training and manuals to use them- on the promise they wouldn't-as well as volumes of stinger missles (the ones Hezbollah uses today) and some shelled out submarines (probably designed now to deliver those nasty nukes they're after- or already posess) in exchange for concessions from Iran they never complied with after recieving the stuff. Don't bother looking for it online. You won't find it. It's in the Library of Congress and National Archive records, but you'd need to hack them, have a backdoor already in place on the databases, or be really lucky with an FOIA request- good luck there for 20- 50 yrs. or so- There really are enemies among us and many of them lead you socially and/ or religiously, you'd be a fool, like a lamb seeking counsel of the wolves, if you thought otherwise. As for Israel's intent on attacking Iran, it's nothing new, or did you forget the first Gulf War ever happened. Brittain's intent on them, too, or, did you forget the Brittain- Iran scandal over Brittain's captured 15 sailors who ventured into Iranian waters. We held off on war with them then , too. But we have been building up forces in the Gulf through these other "conflicts" and "wars" just to get enough men and supplies close enough for a surprise pre-emptive strike. Bush deflected Israel by refusing direct support, how would it look if Israel discovered all those American Centrifuges and supplies, however grossly repainted and camoflauged- if they weren't aware already? The enemy is only the enemy on paper and in mind. They are all seemingly in collussion for a higher stake and we are all just being strung along through some bloody game. But, to deny we want Israel or anyone else involved in a pre- emptive strike is ludicrous, of course we do, just not officially. It's Machiavelli 101: Be the instigator of the conflict without being identified as the source of the conflict, else all parties involved tend to turn on you, then secretly supply the apparent loser and egg them on to fight against all odds, while secretly supplying the apparent victor while encouraging them of their success. Then arise between them openly and public as the seemingly benevolent Resolver of the dispute. Ignorant Bush arrogantly tips his hand every time he cites America's firm intent to "RESOLVE.'
To review the US, Israeli, and other Countries intent to War and public policy to avoid War with Iran as ironic a concurrent jurisdiction policy as it may seem, check out the following article:

January 22, 2006
The World
Why Not a Strike on Iran?
By DAVID E. SANGER
The New York Times
WASHINGTON
DIPLOMATS around the world keep repeating the mantra: There is no military option when it
comes to slowing, much less stopping, Iran's presumed ambitions to get the Bomb. The
Europeans say so. The Chinese, who need Iran's oil, and the Russians, who make billions
supplying Iran's civilian nuclear business, say so emphatically.
Even the hawks in the Bush administration make no threats. When Vice President Dick Cheney
was asked Thursday, in a television interview, if the United States might ever resort to force to
stop Iran, he handled the question as if it, too, were radioactive.
"No president should ever take the military option off the table," he said, carefully avoiding the
kind of language he once used to warn Saddam Hussein. "Let's leave it there."
Mr. Cheney, it seemed, was trying to sow just enough ambiguity to make Iran think twice.
Which raises two questions. If diplomacy fails, does America have a military option? And what
if it doesn't?
"It's a kind of nonsense statement to say there is no military solution to this," said W. Patrick
Lang, the former head of Middle East intelligence at the Defense Intelligence Agency. "It may
not be a desirable solution, but there is a military solution."
Mr. Lang was piercing to the heart of a conundrum the Bush administration recognizes: Iran
could become a case study for pre-emptive military action against a gathering threat, under a
policy Mr. Bush promulgated in 2002. But even if taking out Iran's facilities delay the day the
country goes nuclear, it would alienate allies and probably make firm enemies out of many
Iranians who have come to dislike their theocratic government. And Iran simply has too many
ways of striking back, in the oil markets, in the Persian Gulf, through Hezbollah.
"Could we do it?" one administration official who was deeply involved in planning the Iraq
invasion said recently. "Sure. Could we manage the aftermath? I doubt it."
Similar fears, he said, gave President Bill Clinton pause about launching a strike on North Korea
in 1994. Later that year he reached an accord for a freeze on the North's nuclear production
facilities. But in 2003 everything unfroze, and now the North, by C.I.A. estimates, has enough
fuel for at least half a dozen bombs.
The Iranians took careful notes then, and here in Washington today the Korean experience
underlies diplomacy-versus-force arguments that rarely take place on the record.
The problem is not that Washington lacks targets. Many of Iran's nuclear facilities, or at least
those that American intelligence agencies know about, are in plain view or in underground sites
whose construction was recorded by spy satellites. The problem is the global consequences of an
attack to cripple them.
"The irony is that this is the opposite of Iraq," said John J. Hamre, a deputy defense secretary
from 1997 to 1999. "We know a lot about what they have because the international inspectors
have been there." Those inspection reports have helped Pentagon planners who, in imagining
every contingency, have already mapped out Iran's most vulnerable facilities.
"Elimination of the nuclear program is not possible, but with the right strikes you could
decisively set them back," said Ashton B. Carter, an expert at Harvard on proliferation problems.
In Iran's case, any attack would almost certainly start at Natanz, where Iran clipped off the
International Atomic Energy Agency's seals a week ago and said it was preparing to reassemble
a connected series of 164 centrifuges for purifying uranium.
Just beyond the research laboratories is a huge underground chamber, designed to hold as many
as 50,000 centrifuges, yet unbuilt. Iran hid its existence for years.
Also on the target list, officials said, would be factories that manufacture the centrifuge
components, and a plant at Isfahan where raw uranium is converted into a form that can be fed
into the centrifuges.
Then there are research centers and military installations where the United States suspects - but
cannot prove - that clandestine nuclear-related activity may be taking place. Given the track
record in Iraq, however, there is always the risk that those facilities will turn out to be a watch
factory, or, worse, a schoolhouse. (The Iranians hid one facility behind a false wall in a Tehran
factory, but the I.A.E.A. found it.)
"You are talking about something in the neighborhood of a thousand strike sorties," said Mr.
Lang. "And it would take all kinds of stuff - air, cruise missiles, multiple restrikes - to make sure
you've got it all." Other former officials say fewer bombing runs would be needed.
The Israelis, who see Iran's nuclear program as a threat to their existence and have been far more
outspoken about a military option, give a similar assessment. But they also say they lack the air
power, or the reach, to do the job.
In any event, it is one thing to talk about such strikes in purely military terms, and another to
consider the political cost.
"What you do with a bombing campaign is bring a whole country rallying around its radical
leaders," said Mr. Hamre. "And that's the opposite of what we are trying to achieve in Iran,"
which is to convince a well-traveled, well-educated, and in some cases pro-American population
to usher in a very different kind of leadership.
But if Iran knows the United States and its allies ultimately have no stomach to put military
muscle behind their demands, what is its incentive to give up its weapons program? Efforts by
the Europeans and Russia to come up with formulas that would provide Iran with nuclear
material that cannot be used for weapons have been rejected, at least so far. And no one wants to
threaten truly tough sanctions, for fear that by hurting ordinary Iranians they will only drive
moderates into the camp of their leaders. Those leaders have been threatening retaliation, even to
measures as weak as a letter of warning from the United Nations Security Council.
They have threatened to cut off oil exports and send the markets into a panic, though most
experts said an embargo is not something Iran could execute for very long without damaging its
own economy. Iran could also step up interference in Iraq and dispatch Hezbollah on terror
missions. In addition, the Iranians often boast that their missiles can reach Israel.
Some of those threats may be inflated. And for now, at least, Iran's centrifuge program appears to
have hit some technical hitches. I.A.E.A. inspectors are still in Iran, and the Iranians have not yet
dared throw them out, as the North Koreans did three years ago. A senior European diplomat
involved in the talks with Iran dismissed most of the country's threats last week as "bluster meant
to buy them some time, and keep us paralyzed."
But, he added, "it may work."
Several American officials, when promised anonymity, said they thought that in 5 or 10 years,
Iran will most likely have a weapon.
"They have read us pretty well," Mr. Hamre said. "They have skated right at the edge of
controlled pugnaciousness."
The debate among the West, Russia and China is whether, together, they are willing to skate to
the same edge in hopes that, in a repeat of the cold war, the other side blinks first.
• Copyright 2006The New York Times Company



posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 01:22 PM
link   
As for nukes, it's basic chemistry really, when you take the high dollar window dressing off it. Sure you have to be careful, but, if your insane enough to do it- like Oppenheimer- what's careful really? I mean, I've lived near TVA Uranium enrichment and Uranium mines long enough to know that, basically, all you do is take Uranium squeeze it out of the ground, or material, with a really kick ass trash compactor, spin it really fast and suck out what suspends in the middle, spin that some more, really fast, and suck out the middle. Really do it as much as you like for purer stuff. Then make the gunk a ball, oil it up with say berryllium oil, place it in a sphere coated with high explosives, or crap you can make outta bleach and clay with a heating plate and a battery tester (C4), and maybe throw in some high grade fertilizer and homemade dynamite, lining the surface of the ball to make it blow in on the gunk and whallah! It doesn't take fancy or high tech equipment, just a crude effective one. You can operate it manually or by remote (say like with some whacked out suicide bomber or Kamakazi pilot). If you really wanted to be nasty you could send it via. rocket to space and take out gaseous Venus or some other gas giant. Religious freaks would love that. It would usher in an Armageddon on a scale that would surely bring their Messiahs' a runnin'. It would would have catastrophic affects on Earth, as a whole, none the less. But, why go that route when you can squeeze out rarer Pluonium from tons of Pluonium rich soil and get way nastier effects. Just a spoonful'll do ya. Any monkey with severe mental disorders could do it. As if they don't already.
Will people reach no end to their lunacy? The fact that what I've laid out is merely based, not on some mystical secrets, but on common knowledge is frightening. That Bush, Israel, and the like are supposedly highly educated, yet, they carry on with crazy people in these crazy games, make me wonder if the educated aren't crazy themself. Maybe, education is the path to lunacy.
Israel is worried Iran means to wipe them out. God's "chosen" people seem to have no concern for what will happen to other people of the World should they attack and provoke fellow lunatics such as the Russian supported Iranians. I guess the Gentiles, the Goyim, that is the non- Jew aren't just hated by the Jew, they are completely disregarded when it comes to saving their own hides. Where's their faith in their war-like God as their champion and protector of his "chosen people"? Don't they have faith in His plan for them, or, is His plan what they say it is when they say it is? Hezbollah is Iranian, but, we call them Hezbollah so we can avoid saying Israel is in a violent conflict with Iran. We sugar coat it so you forget, Iran is already firing it's rockets at Israel.

[edit on 11-1-2009 by PhyberDragon]



posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by turbokid
 


Yeah like Obama is going to attack Iran. He wouldn't do anything because other Libs would be all over him. Pelosi and Reed would have a heart attack if one of their own attacked Iran.



posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 01:30 PM
link   
Iran is the main pillar within The Axis of Evil. Iran should be excluded from any final ME settlement. Iran is a pain in the bum when it comes to the ME.

[edit on 11-1-2009 by ufoorbhunter]



posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 01:32 PM
link   
Soon as Israel does Iran proper style, the better. Iran is acknowledged by the West as the main pillar within The Axis of Evil. Iran is not really part of the Middle East, ignore it and the Israeli/Palestinian problem will be much easier to solve.



posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 01:49 PM
link   
Get this, if you watch FOX news right now they are discussing reports that Iran is securing bomb parts from the USA via third parties.

I'm not a big conspiracy theorist but I swear I am starting to believe that all of the war and conflict in the middle east is being orchestrated to cause an oil crisis which would cause a spike in global oil prices.

Maybe it really is all about the oil... motivated by greed and the almighty dollar.



posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by ufoorbhunter
Soon as Israel does Iran proper style, the better. Iran is acknowledged by the West as the main pillar within The Axis of Evil. Iran is not really part of the Middle East, ignore it and the Israeli/Palestinian problem will be much easier to solve.


Sounds good, but, Israel is heavily funded and supported by the US economically, militarily, politically and religious, not that they aren't already the wealthiest nation per capita without our money. Any offensive made by them would be construed as having American blessing, because, strategically, it is the US's Achille's heel. The US WILL NOT attack it's religious center no matter how much it opposes it. The only way for that to happen would be for the Non Yahweh supporting religions to rule American majority demographic. That is non Christian, Muslim, and Judeo faiths, and possibly, Eastern Orthodox Principle believers woul;d have to be out of the equation. That leaves Pagans, Luciferians, and the like would have to be the ruling demographic. As long as that's true, the US can only hope that Israel does not put itself in a position of military and/ or political opposition to the US or the US may be forced to change it's policies to reflect those of Israel. Israel plays a dangerous game. And it does so with poor Palestinians who they drove off to those Israeli settlements (then called it Gaza to make us think it's not Jerusalum too). Which Palestinians were there first anyways. Just as they did with the original Caananite inhabitants. So they drive them off to Gaza, strip them of their former lives, and now, attack them to drive them out completely. Take religion out of it and Israel seems like a nation of a@#holes. But, attacking Iran, would place America in an uncomfortable position, which is what they do by fighting Hezbollah, which is to say, poor Palestinians with crude weapons against an advanced welled trained military who could readily wipe them out, but chose to just pick them off and make them angrier.
Nice idea, but, not a smart one.



posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 02:18 PM
link   
Um, this is well established mainstream news ....

Why is this even being discussed ...



posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Walkswithfish
 


The original yahoo feed I saw that quoted the Times report said that the U.S. is covertly attempting to sabotage vital supplies and computer parts and equiptment used in Iran's nuclear program trhough various suppliers and outside sources. The problem I have with this "leak" is that it violates OPSEC but yet there is no DoD backlash or outcry from the Bush Admin. If we remember the Plame Incident the CIA and other official agencies wanted blood for the leak. But endangering an obviously very sensitive and delicate operation like this without any type of REAL gov't acknowledgement outside of, Obama will now have to decide whether or not to continue this program, doesn't fit.



posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 04:11 PM
link   
I agree.

After some thought, it does seem like a prepared, calculated 'leak' to coincide with the Gaza conflict.

But to what end? Is Bush trying to make himself look like less of a war monger and save his legacy before he leaves office?

His PR campaign in the past few weeks has really stepped up a notch, so maybe this is just another part.



posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 04:19 PM
link   
You know I haven't wrapped my head around that yet. One of he possibilities is that the "black op" is actually nothing more than a shell program to try an induce some paranoia on the part of Iranians about where they are getting thier supplies. Possibly to delay progress or use it as a means to REALLY infiltrate the supply chain.

[edit on 11-1-2009 by djvexd]



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join