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.

 

US to Israel: Leave the military option against Iran to us

page: 3
4
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 06:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Jakes51
 


It's nothing but a farce.Beating the war drums AGAIN and trying to scare everyone.Same old rhetoric but now they have decided to turn up the volume in the media after laying low for a while.Propaganda and nothing less.

www.jpost.com...

edition.cnn.com...

www.haaretz.com...

Im sure there are many many more news articles, that was a quick search.They are doing the same as Iraq with WMD's so when but hopefully not there is action taken by Israel,alot of people will be thinking they are safer in their beds at night because of it.Tell a lie long enough and loud enough and people will start to believe it.

[edit on 1-8-2009 by Solomons]




posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ownification
reply to post by Jakes51
 


Actually the UN watchdog was checking for many years until the West keeped barking saying they should halt all activities immediatly. All the members of the watch dog has stated that there is no indication that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons.




Article IV of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty:

1. Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with Articles I and II of this Treaty.

2. All the Parties to the Treaty undertake to facilitate, and have the right to participate in, the fullest possible exchange of equipment, materials and scientific and technological information for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Parties to the Treaty in a position to do so shall also co-operate in contributing alone or together with other States or international organizations to the further development of the applications of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, especially in the territories of non-nuclear-weapon States Party to the Treaty, with due consideration for the needs of the developing areas of the world.

----

Notice, the word 'shall'? It doesn't say 'may'. In other words, the USA is obligated by treaty to help Iran develop peaceful uses of nuclear technology.

Let's not cry over this, America is just paniking because as you can see the empire is on the brink of collapse just like the Soviets when they got a kickass by the Afghans.


Thanks for the information about the treaty, but last I checked, it was the Russians assisting the Iranians in nuclear development and not the US. The US and the Russians haven't always had a rosy disposition toward one another. I guess it's the whole Cold War mindset? Old habits die hard? Who knows what those Russian engineers and scientists have been sharing with the Iranians and to what end? We still haven't received any concrete evidence that Iran is intent on using nuclear technology for peaceful purposes? Essentially, all the international community has received is baseless assurances by the government about their intentions and no hardcore evidence to corroborate their claims. Lets just wait and see what is in store for September when the Iranian response is delivered to the United States.



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 06:53 PM
link   
I guess I am naive but I just do not understand why Israel with what is said to be an arsenal of more than 300 nuclear weapons is so concerned that Iran might develop a bomb. Israel could destroy the entire Middle East if they were attacked. I just do not see Iran nuking Israel since this would be suicidal.



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Solomons
 


In agreement with you, the war drums are pounding louder and louder with each passing day. However, I am still concerned about the secrecy surrounding Iran's nuclear program and all I want to see is concrete evidence that their program is indeed peaceful. If they can offer that, then I am all for it. I don't mind being wrong and if I am wrong about my concerns then thank goodness. I, like you, don't want another war anywhere and especially Iran; it will be utter disaster for all parties involved. However, if the concerns are justified, how long does a country like Israel wait to respond; after Tel Aviv is in flames following a nuclear strike? Come up with the data and evidence validating the peaceful intentions of said nuclear program and I think the attack dogs will be called off.

[edit on 1-8-2009 by Jakes51]



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reply to post by wayouttheredude
 


Yes, Israel has a nuclear deterrent but that is exactly what it is. If they didn't have it they would be in continual warfare with their neighborhoods. They are not the most welcomed group in the Middle East. Plus, they are a pretty small country straddling some significantly larger countries. I am not condoning the cloak and dagger approach of the nuclear program in Israel but I can see why they have one.

Is it wrong for them to be concerned about the Iranians acquiring nuclear weapons because they have them? Yes and no. Yes, their railing against would make them out as hypocrites. No, because they are entitled to protect themselves and remain vigilant from threats both perceived and concrete. This is what many refer to as the slippery slope or the gray area. I wish the world was black and white but unfortunately it has all hues. I just hope a peaceful resolution can be reached before this standoff goes hot.



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Jakes51
 


..It's not about nuclear weapons.Iran and the surrounding region are significant geo-political locations.They have and are going after them one by one to secure their dominance in the decades to come.Iran just got out of their grip in 1979 for crying out loud...30 years ago.It is an absolutely vital region for oil and gas reserves among other things.You should follow some of slayer69's threads that he calls the great game.



[edit on 1-8-2009 by Solomons]



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Solomons
 


Good point about the underlying ulterior motives surrounding that region of the world and yes I am fan of Slayer69's thread. However, what is at hand is nuclear weapons and Iran. I just don't see the need for them to acquire nuclear weapons when they can form a strategic partnership with China or Russia. With the clout of those two nations backing them up I think Israel and the US will return to their corners. However, there is no denying that the US has a master plan in the region with a military presence in both Afghanistan and Iraq; two countries on the border of Iran. If I were the Iranians I would comply to the demands of the US and Israel with hardcore evidence about their intentions, and then, if the warmongering persists; then we know there is something foul in the wind. You know the whole scenario of give them the rope and let them hang themselves.



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jakes51

I knew this was going to come up, and yes, according to revelations given by Mordecai Vannunu, Israel has a nuclear weapons program. I am not condoning the secrecy of Israel's nuclear arsenal, however, it shouldn't matter any more that they have them; there is nothing anyone can do about it.


WTF???

There isn't anything they can do about it??

Is that some sort of threat??

It's the pot calling the kettle black in the worst way.

Your argument is moot if you cannot see both sides.

~moot!



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 11:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Solomons
reply to post by john124
 


Im just going to take your last point on Iranians wanting to overthrow the supreme leader.It's a simple numbers game here.Are you saying the majority of the 70 million iranians explicitly stated they want the supreme leader overthrown? yes or no? or was it just groups you saw on the tv and news? Lets just throw a number out which is nowhere near the actual figure.Two and a half million iranians were chanting they wanted rid of the supreme leader and not protesting about the presidential election.Thats 3.5% of the population.Of course we will never know if the majority do or not as we haven't asked them all,but you are stating they do which is being untruthful.

[edit on 1-8-2009 by Solomons]


I have discussed this with my Iranian colleagues who have a little insight into what's going on. They have indicated that the general mindset is against the regime, and that even in poorer areas of Tehran that are traditionally Ahmadinejad even voted Mousavi in large numbers.

Recently memebrs of the opposition organised their supporters to switch on various electrical appliances at the same time, such as irons, kettles etc. This led to power cuts throughout the country, and was timed during Ahmadinejad's speeches on state television. This even happened in the poorer areas.

This leads me to conclude that the majority are with the opposition. You may disagree, but that's on very little basis. And you seem to have just assumed most likely without reading my previous posts that I have concluded this all from media sources alone. Please refrain from making a strawman argument, whether inadvertent of not. As it's silly, and we all know we cannot make these conclusions based on western media alone.

I think it's also fair to say that only a portion of those against the regime would be willing to protest, therefore if given an opportunity more would flood the streets. And 10-20 million would probably suffice for a revolution.

It would be naive to assume that every supporter has been out at the same time. It is more logical to conclude that different supporters have been out at different times, much in the way supporters at football matches would go to different games. The only similarity being that of course. And potentially every Mousavi voter could be a future protestor or integral part of the revolution.


[edit on 1-8-2009 by john124]



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 11:15 PM
link   
please delete

[edit on 1-8-2009 by john124]



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 11:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZeroKnowledge
reply to post by john124
 


This is a little weird request. Name me 1 country that did not buy something from others in time of war. Not to mention those countries that were Israeli opponents. Or you would claim that Egypt made T-62 and Syria T-72 , Mig is middle Eastern firm operating from Jordan and AK-47s were invented in Iraq.


I don't see any purpose of that.

Although Iran does build it's own tanks and planes.

afp.google.com...



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 03:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by breakingdradles

Originally posted by Jakes51

I knew this was going to come up, and yes, according to revelations given by Mordecai Vannunu, Israel has a nuclear weapons program. I am not condoning the secrecy of Israel's nuclear arsenal, however, it shouldn't matter any more that they have them; there is nothing anyone can do about it.


WTF???

There isn't anything they can do about it??

Is that some sort of threat??

It's the pot calling the kettle black in the worst way.

Your argument is moot if you cannot see both sides.

~moot!


Sorry if I peed in your cheerios but what I said is reality. We can debate all day about Israel having nukes but is it going to make them disarm or scale back? Disarm, after they have the bomb, highly unlikely. They have them now and any nation that does will never surrender that option. It's a bitter pill and Iran is going to have to eat it. They were a day late and a dollar short when it comes to the nuclear weapons game.

However, I don't trust the Iranian government and their brand of radical Islam and lets hope they don't get the bomb! Just because Israel has them doesn't give Iran the right to acquire them. Two bitter enemies with nukes pointed at each other is lunacy! There is no justification for Israel having nukes and acquiring them under the veil of secrecy, however, debating about that fact is moot, because there is nothing anyone can do to change it as I said earlier.

C'mon folks this isn't scud missiles we are talking about but nuclear weapons! I'm sorry you feel my argument is moot but I am trying to rationally discuss the topic.



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 08:54 PM
link   
Just keep this in mind folks.... If Israel or the USA or USA/Israel attack Iran then Russia with possibly the addition of China will be marching right into Iran to support it. When this happens you will see both the USA and Israel kicked out of the Middle East within a year's time.

Iran is Russia's sensitive underbelly just as Mexico is America's. Russia has gone into Iran before when it was threatened by the Nazis and they will do it again.

I will repeat here that all of the Russians that I have talked to see this as a foregone conclusion.

Watch the powder keg explode and backfire on the agrressors.



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by 3DPrisoner
Just keep this in mind folks.... If Israel or the USA or USA/Israel attack Iran then Russia with possibly the addition of China will be marching right into Iran to support it. When this happens you will see both the USA and Israel kicked out of the Middle East within a year's time.

Iran is Russia's sensitive underbelly just as Mexico is America's. Russia has gone into Iran before when it was threatened by the Nazis and they will do it again.

I will repeat here that all of the Russians that I have talked to see this as a foregone conclusion.

Watch the powder keg explode and backfire on the agrressors.


Yes, you are correct that Russia and China may get involved. For one thing Russia has advisers in Iran assisting them with their nuclear program and China is a major exporter of Iranian oil. So they both clearly have interests at stake here. I hope those two nations stay out of this one because it will lead to WWIII in no time. Talk about a geo-political perfect storm that will open Pandora's box if it isn't handled delicately.



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 02:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by john124

Originally posted by Solomons
reply to post by john124
 


Im just going to take your last point on Iranians wanting to overthrow the supreme leader.It's a simple numbers game here.Are you saying the majority of the 70 million iranians explicitly stated they want the supreme leader overthrown? yes or no? or was it just groups you saw on the tv and news? Lets just throw a number out which is nowhere near the actual figure.Two and a half million iranians were chanting they wanted rid of the supreme leader and not protesting about the presidential election.Thats 3.5% of the population.Of course we will never know if the majority do or not as we haven't asked them all,but you are stating they do which is being untruthful.

[edit on 1-8-2009 by Solomons]


I have discussed this with my Iranian colleagues who have a little insight into what's going on. They have indicated that the general mindset is against the regime, and that even in poorer areas of Tehran that are traditionally Ahmadinejad even voted Mousavi in large numbers.

Recently memebrs of the opposition organised their supporters to switch on various electrical appliances at the same time, such as irons, kettles etc. This led to power cuts throughout the country, and was timed during Ahmadinejad's speeches on state television. This even happened in the poorer areas.

This leads me to conclude that the majority are with the opposition. You may disagree, but that's on very little basis. And you seem to have just assumed most likely without reading my previous posts that I have concluded this all from media sources alone. Please refrain from making a strawman argument, whether inadvertent of not. As it's silly, and we all know we cannot make these conclusions based on western media alone.

I think it's also fair to say that only a portion of those against the regime would be willing to protest, therefore if given an opportunity more would flood the streets. And 10-20 million would probably suffice for a revolution.

It would be naive to assume that every supporter has been out at the same time. It is more logical to conclude that different supporters have been out at different times, much in the way supporters at football matches would go to different games. The only similarity being that of course. And potentially every Mousavi voter could be a future protestor or integral part of the revolution.


[edit on 1-8-2009 by john124]


Sorry but this is just garbage - the facts stand - UK and US polls PRIOR to the election showed a massive victory to Ahmedinijad - it was MOUSAVI who claimed the election victory within minutes of the polls closing.

Further polls and recounts have ALL indicated that Ahmedinijad would have one - no one is claiming this as false except you - the only issue at stake EVER was why Ahmedinijad claimed victory by so much - DEPSITE the fact that MOUSAVI had claimed victory within minutes of the polls closing.

Further Symore Hersche of the New Yorker broke the story 12 months ago that Congress had passed a HALF BILLION dollar grant to the CIA for covert activity aimed at destabilising the regime during the elections using the Iranian Moujahidine - FACT.

Further it has also been broken that the missing 12 billion in cash from the Iraqi rebuilding fund was syphoned off to be used by the CIA for destabilising Iran - FACT.

FURTHER it has been known that the CIA spammed the Iranian students with messages - the phone numbers were supplied by Mousavis MAIN BACKER a man who acutally OWNS the universities in Iran - FACT.

CIA's main function - one more time - MAIN FUNCTION - is covert operations and regime change - this is their charter - they are also majority outsourced.

I have just completed a masters dissertation which included operations of the secret intelligence operations of the united states and united kingdom - constantly reminding people that you "know" someone in Iran simply says to me you are short on intel - and devoid of facts.

Will gladly supply links to all of this if you are completely incapable of using GOOGLE (have done so repeatedly on this site - they are available) - but remember when I do put them up you are going to look real stupid - this is an opportunity to educate yourself without being thoroughlyand publicly embarrassed....



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 03:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jakes51

Originally posted by breakingdradles

Originally posted by Jakes51

I knew this was going to come up, and yes, according to revelations given by Mordecai Vannunu, Israel has a nuclear weapons program. I am not condoning the secrecy of Israel's nuclear arsenal, however, it shouldn't matter any more that they have them; there is nothing anyone can do about it.


WTF???

There isn't anything they can do about it??

Is that some sort of threat??

It's the pot calling the kettle black in the worst way.

Your argument is moot if you cannot see both sides.

~moot!


Sorry if I peed in your cheerios but what I said is reality. We can debate all day about Israel having nukes but is it going to make them disarm or scale back? Disarm, after they have the bomb, highly unlikely. They have them now and any nation that does will never surrender that option. It's a bitter pill and Iran is going to have to eat it. They were a day late and a dollar short when it comes to the nuclear weapons game.

However, I don't trust the Iranian government and their brand of radical Islam and lets hope they don't get the bomb! Just because Israel has them doesn't give Iran the right to acquire them. Two bitter enemies with nukes pointed at each other is lunacy! There is no justification for Israel having nukes and acquiring them under the veil of secrecy, however, debating about that fact is moot, because there is nothing anyone can do to change it as I said earlier.

C'mon folks this isn't scud missiles we are talking about but nuclear weapons! I'm sorry you feel my argument is moot but I am trying to rationally discuss the topic.


Sorry you are quite mistaken - Israel entire military power is dependant on the US - completely - all that it would take is for the US to declare a nuclear free middle east which included an Israeli disarmament or face sanctions and a complete embargo on all us / uk military and financial support and the nukes would be packed up about fifteen minutes - your response shows a very clear lack of understanding of Israels position in that yes they have HUGE sway over American politics however with out the US they would simply vanish -

If America was to put this position forward and insist on security council support, which they would get as UK would not jeopardise their position, then Israel would have little choice. They are not going to turn to Russia or China for support are they ?

Further you talk of nuclear armed enemies as if they don't exist - yet forget that two countries are at war with each other right now and have nukes - again - illogical or geo-politically illiterate ?



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 03:32 AM
link   
Iran has every right in the world to acquire nuclear weapons - the PRIME reason for owning them is deter aggressor nations from invading - the PRIME reason the west does not want them to have the power is so that they remain vulnerable.

Iran owning nukes would pose a considerable layer of stability on the region - Iran has consistently shown the most level . and non aggressive position of ANY nation on earth despite the outrageous attempts at usurping power, covert regime change, and extensive manipulation of western power structures to destabilise the country - they should be applauded for showing such restraint and in my view have without doubt shown the best case of ANY nation to own nuclear weapons.

Further - China has made it very clear, and stated repeatedly that they will defend their energy interests and that is Iran.

Will America attack Iran ?

www.reuters.com...

You bet - it is going to happen - the consequences of attacking IRan will play right into the US hands - they have HUGE stocks of reserve oil and will use this to maintain the nation, prices for everything will skyrocket and this will drum up popular public support for a ,much more overt campaign of aggression for energy security - the US will invade the region wholesale....this will involve Iran closing the straights shutting off all oil, they will immediately flood into Iraq and isloate Americans in the region, Pakistan will immediately flood into Afghanistan isolating the US troops there, while Russia will move straight into Georgia.

Further benefits include the liquidation of their debt - the US will simply declare that their debt is tied to the outcome of the middle east as they are in a war footing, the massive oil price spike will drive the US dollar into oblivion completely destroying the Chinese reserves providing an opportune moment for the west to declare a new currency - this has already started.

China is a non aggressive nation and does not seek war - US knows this - and will use its history of highly aggressive operations to intimidate China.

The only problem the US faces is that the rest of the world realises the danger the US poses as a long term empire - it is tyranical - the Chinese would be well within their reasoning to see an end to the US for everyones benefit - and this is where things are going to get ugly -
The Americans haven't quite realised that they are now viewed globally as the axis of evil - they are the ones who need to be stopped and as ALL OF HISTORY has shown - nations will forge alliances to rid themselves of tyranny - even the ancients will attest to this.

The Americans will, like they ALWAYS DO, withdraw with their tails between their legs, however as they always do mission will be accomplished. Whole sale changes will have occured to the global structure of finance, their debt will be wiped, new alliances will be forged between western nations etc - the Chinese and Russians will announce energy relations with the emerging nations and right at that moment the US will announce their new energy platform for the coming century and it simply will not involve Carbon -

The reason for all of this is that the US needs to maintain its power, however this can not be done without controlling the oil - the US therefore needs to rid itself of its current obligations to the emerging dragons, will wind down its reserves, will push the emerging nations into a false sense of victory through an almost total reliance on oil - and at the last minute play the old switcheroo -

If this isn't the case and the Americans really do go in for total control of the energy reserves then America will be completely devolved within 20 years - I would expect to see occupation of some regions by foreign interests..



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 03:42 AM
link   
reply to post by audas
 


That's a nice bit of fiction.
Why don't you come join us writers.

There is no way in hell that you can substantiate most of that. It's pure speculation. Not even imaginative at that. I did like the bit about the old switcharoo and foreign occupation though. Brought a tear to my eye.



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 04:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by audas
 


That's a nice bit of fiction.
Why don't you come join us writers.

There is no way in hell that you can substantiate most of that. It's pure speculation. Not even imaginative at that. I did like the bit about the old switcharoo and foreign occupation though. Brought a tear to my eye.




Which part mate -

You slate what I have written and there are dozens of points - soooo lets hear it. Writers....make me laugh what have you ever written beyond net posts.

[edit on 3-8-2009 by audas]



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 08:48 AM
link   
reply to post by audas
 


Good points but I have to respectfully disagree with your analysis of my remarks. First, it will be a iceberg's chance in hell that the US and the UK would go before the security counsel to slap sanctions and an arms embargo on Israel. Let say hypothetically this scenario happened, as you speculate; it would give Israel more of an incentive to maintain a nuclear deterrent? In the case made above, it would mean Israel is truly alone against its enemies in that region and nuclear weapons would be the only way to keep their enemies honest.

In addition, I don't think the American Jews would be too happy about your scenario either. We know the American politician likes to go with the flow and there is no way they would back that kind of deal on the floor of the House and the Senate. If any decided to back your proposal it would mean political suicide for what ever politician or party behind it. You say Israel has significant influence over politics in the US? Of course they do, but so does the UK, Germany, France, Saudi Arabia, China, Japan, and others . . . They have their lobbyists at the feeding trough for financial aid and arms as two examples. It is no different than when envoys from smaller nations or principalities went before a king or emperor in times of old for concessions and it is the same with the United States today. With all due respect, I know more about geopolitics than you may think.

[edit on 3-8-2009 by Jakes51]



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join