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.

 

Obama: U.S. not giving Israel green light to attack Iran

page: 3
5
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Night Watchman
 
Well lets just take a quick look at our signals to these two countries so far......We had a NK ship carrying arms which I believe we said we (along with other countries) would not allow...What did we do about it? We let it go, did nothing but look at it. WRONG SIGNAL. Iran just crushed it's own people in the streets after a sham of an election....What did we do about it? We say we would still welcome talks with this government. WRONG SIGNAL.

Open your eyes, Obama is weak. It is right in front of you.




posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by drwizardphd
 



This one made me LOL



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 06:27 PM
link   
Its more like Israel is becoming more of an irritation to US and EU. I doubt US will approve anymore war for a period of time when there is already economy slowdown on top of that billions of dollars being spent in war on Iraq and Afghanistan. What Israel s looking for more "aid" and "money" as they always do from US to attack Iran which Obama doesnt seem keen too.



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Common Sense says...


Open your eyes, Obama is weak. It is right in front of you.



When someone poses a question, it's kind of customary to actually answer it. So let me pose the question again.

What action would you take? What signals would you send?

My eyes are wide open. I just watched eight years of chest thumping rhetoric that may have sounded tough to someone like you but was, in truth, the ultimate in weakness.

If you consider attacking Iraq under false pretenses a "strong," signal (and I don't know that you do), then yeah you would think Obama is weak.

So please, let me know what action Obama should be taking...please.



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Night Watchman

Originally posted by ergoli


Hmm, and if i believe you are preparing to buy a baseball bat tomorrow (you claim you want to play baseball, but i know it better: you want to hit me), do i have the right to preemptively defend myself and assasinate you today ?



[edit on 7-7-2009 by ergoli]


No. However, if the neighbor comes into my yard with that bat and takes a swing at one of my children, I will respond and it won't be a measured one. My retaliation would most assuredly prevent him from ever wanting to take a swing at an member of my family ever again.



We are talking about preemptive action here based on suspictions put forth by the same Gang of Liars and Murderers who lied about the Iraq Dossier, and already contradicted by CIA, AIEA, and Iranian reports. So we have to assume the allegations against Iran are false.

Therefore the neighbour did not take a swing at one of your children when you killed him.



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by ergoli


We are talking about preemptive action here based on suspictions put forth by the same Gang of Liars and Murderers who lied about the Iraq Dossier, and already contradicted by CIA, AIEA, and Iranian reports. So we have to assume the allegations against Iran are false.

Therefore the neighbour did not take a swing at one of your children when you ikilled him.


Good assumption.

Good luck with that.



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 09:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Karlhungis
True... Well technically. Your hands would still be tainted though.

The US gave enough nuclear weapons, white phosphorous, newfangled weapons and technicals to Israel for Israel to fight a very comfortable war. Israel has about 200-500 nukes, I gather. That is a HUGE battle advantage. Iran has how many nukes? Probably none.

Israel could send nukes against any major enemy formations, cities, and the like, so convoys of tanks and battle wagons heading to Israel would be an stupid tactical move.

I feel Iran should simply hunker in and prepare contingency plans against communications loss, US supplied disinformation, misinformation, weird 'surrender' brainwaves like the ones that turned the Iraqis into surrendering by the thousands.

I don't suppose the Iraqi military was as well-together as the Revolutionary guard, who I bet keep their weapons clean and well fed.

Saudi Arabia would love to see Iran gone judging by their allowing Western-based military fly over their airspace.

Would other Muslim nations help out? They'll be concerned about getting nuked if they sent their forces into Israel, and the protesters will be afraid of losing everything after being branded a domestic terrorist and hauled off to a large jail full of rapists or a camp somewhere in the countryside.

Maybe the show between Obama and Medvedev is just a show and Russia will try do something to Israel if Israel attacks, IE: Return the favor for America helping out the Afghans in their war against the Russians.

I bet the Russians are just itching to return the favor to the US for helping out in their ass kicking by the Afghans.



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 06:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by star in a jar


Saudi Arabia would love to see Iran gone judging by their allowing Western-based military fly over their airspace.

Would other Muslim nations help out? They'll be concerned about getting nuked if they sent their forces into Israel, and the protesters will be afraid of losing everything after being branded a domestic terrorist and hauled off to a large jail full of rapists or a camp somewhere in the countryside.



Why do we persist in seeing the Middle East in such black and white terms? The Arab nations in the region do not want a nuclear capable Iran as it threatens the regional security. It's not that Saudi Arabia or any other neighboring country wants Iran destroyed it that they don't believe it is in the world's best interest to allow another nuclear nation in the region.



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 07:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Night Watchman

Originally posted by star in a jar


Saudi Arabia would love to see Iran gone judging by their allowing Western-based military fly over their airspace.

Would other Muslim nations help out? They'll be concerned about getting nuked if they sent their forces into Israel, and the protesters will be afraid of losing everything after being branded a domestic terrorist and hauled off to a large jail full of rapists or a camp somewhere in the countryside.



Why do we persist in seeing the Middle East in such black and white terms? The Arab nations in the region do not want a nuclear capable Iran as it threatens the regional security. It's not that Saudi Arabia or any other neighboring country wants Iran destroyed it that they don't believe it is in the world's best interest to allow another nuclear nation in the region.


If that was true they would be committed in taking out the one that already HAS hundreds of nukes AND oppose the WHOLE Muslim way of life. I think, like any wise person -- Saudi Arabia is keeping their enemies closer. And as I said, there will be no Iran-Israel war, as it would be the end of Israel. And if so the US better NOT get involved, because NK WILL ambush attack us with a nuke.



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 07:41 AM
link   
reply to post by ElloAll
 


Do you really believe that NK has the capability of ambushing us with a nuke? That missile would never get beyond an altitude of 5,000 feet.

[edit on 8-7-2009 by jibeho]



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 08:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by heineken
Obama said Tuesday that Biden had simply been stating a fact, not sending a signal.

Obama's serious inexperience is showing again. No POTUS or Vice POTUS 'just' states facts. When they state facts, they send signals. No matter what they say, even down to if they tell people what they had for lunch, it states signals. EVERYTHING they say or do will be examined. It's just the way it is.


Originally posted by drwizardphd
I read and re-read his post, he didn't mention Jews or Zionists or anything like that.

Manbehindthemask was referring to the posting history of that ATS member.
Take a look on his profile.


Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask
Israel has the right to make sure they are safe.

It's a soverign nation and it most definately does.
Not just a right ... but an obligation to it's citizens.


Originally posted by LeoLoeb
Israel has the right to defend itself and to conduct its own internal affairs. It also has the right to get its ass kicked.

Israel's business is Israel's business. They have a right to
defend themselves. They also have a right to the Darwin Award
if they aren't smart about their business.




[edit on 7/8/2009 by FlyersFan]



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by ElloAll


If that was true they would be committed in taking out the one that already HAS hundreds of nukes AND oppose the WHOLE Muslim way of life. I think, like any wise person -- Saudi Arabia is keeping their enemies closer. And as I said, there will be no Iran-Israel war, as it would be the end of Israel. And if so the US better NOT get involved, because NK WILL ambush attack us with a nuke.


Again, your approach here is far too simplistic. Heads of State don't have the luxury that you have. They have to live in the real world dealing with the realities of today.

Some countries have nuclear weapons. Most do not. Since we don't have the option of waving a wand and making all of the existing nuclear weapons disappear, one who would like to work towards a nuclear free world are forced to compromise.

That is what the International Nuclear Non Proliferation treaty was designed to do; freeze current stockpiles while prohibiting the production of either additional weapons for countries already have the capability as well as the implementation of a nuclear weapons program in the countries that do not.

This is a first and necessary step to reducing nuclear arsenals across the board.

EDIT - And as for your prediction that an Israeli/Iran conflict would result in Israel's demise, that is preposterous. The net result would be that Iran would no longer have a fully functional nuclear facility.

Oh and just so you know, North Korea doesn't possess a nuclear weapon that could be used to "ambush," the US.

It might be a good idea to do some research on Nuclear weaponry and the capabilities of various countries.

[edit on 8-7-2009 by Night Watchman]



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 12:11 PM
link   
I somehow doubt that the US agenda in all this is to keep the region stable by limiting nukes. The US has consistently fought to keep other nations from getting nukes because that keeps them at a severe disadvantage. Nukes largely limit the playing field, even a single one. US has demonstrated that only countries with nukes can bring them to the negotiating table instead of sending in the storm troopers. If the US actually cared about reducing nukes they would be compliant signatories of the IAEA and the NPT rather than just trying to force them on everyone else.

As for it being a fallacy that attacking iran would assure israeli destruction. Im sure that when franz ferdinand was assassinated no one had any idea it would start a world war. No one truly knows what can set one off....but i wouldnt put it past a Iran/israel conflict to start one. Its hard to see ahead, what all the results of your actions would be. It may not assure israels destruction....but it definitely increases the risk, just as our "War on terror" increases our risk of terrorist attacks.

[edit on 8-7-2009 by pexx421]



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by pexx421
I somehow doubt that the US agenda in all this is to keep the region stable by limiting nukes. The US has consistently fought to keep other nations from getting nukes because that keeps them at a severe disadvantage.
[edit on 8-7-2009 by pexx421]


The US absolutely needs and wants a stable ME. Access to oil resources is all important and the last thing the US wants is a conflict that disrupts the flow of oil.

That said, I wasn't talking about the US in my previous post. I was suggesting that most of the world, and especially the nations in the ME region do not want Iran to have nuclear weapons in the interest of regional security.



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 07:41 PM
link   
I think in order for this to mean anything, the airspace of Iraq should be closed, and enforced, regardless of consequence. It would show the region that the U.S. and Iraq are serious about diplomacy rather than turning a blind eye to it's Israeli ally to see fit to do whatever it wants.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join