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.
Originally posted by john124
Ron Paul's just looking for attention and pandering to his own crowd. They're no different to the pro-war crowd, as both views are based entirely on the nuclear issue
Originally posted by john124
The real issues are the failures of the iranian govt. to prevent widespread protests.
Originally posted by john124
They cannot even speak at their own universities, never mind use diplomacy at the UN, or govern their own country.
Originally posted by john124
They're not even in control, as they are reactive and not exactly pro-active.
Originally posted by john124
The regime would prefer us to talk about their nuclear weapons programme so our attention is diverted away from their own collapse at the hands of their own people. I'm sure they would love Israel to bomb this 2nd facility, so they can rally their people against the west. Either way they're finished and deserve to be, and that doesn't make me pro-war, it makes me observant.
Originally posted by john124
A leader in the revolutionary guards admitted that a couple of Friday's ago on Qod's day - opposition protests in Tehran were around 2 million, and 4 million around Iran.
Originally posted by john124
reply to post by bigyin
Actually a lot of what I said is still true even if Ron Paul is correct.
Originally posted by john124
You seem to have a simplistic view that one cannot criticise a country without being pro-war.
Originally posted by john124
Were anyone raped/tortured in prison from the G-20 protests? Does that justify Iran's torturing should that have taken place anyway.
Originally posted by ModernAcademia
...
but right now if you are pro-war I would consider you anti-american
and that doesn't really mean much
what really means alot is that you are anti-people!
war is bankrupting you beyond belief and you want more?
U.S. intelligence had “learned that the Iranians learned that the secrecy of the facility was compromised”, one of the officials said, according to the White House transcript. The Iranians had informed the IAEA, he asserted, because “they came to believe that the value of the facility as a secret facility was no longer valid…”
Later in the briefing, however, the official said “we believe”, rather than “we learned”, in referring to that claim, indicating that it is only an inference rather than being based on hard intelligence.
The official refused to explain how U.S. analysts had arrived at that conclusion, but an analysis by the defence intelligence consulting firm IHS Jane’s of a satellite photo of the site taken Saturday said there is a surface-to-air missile system located at the site.
Since surface-to-air missiles protect many Iranian military sites, however, their presence at the Qom site doesn’t necessarily mean that Iran believed that Washington had just discovered the enrichment plant.
The official said the administration had organised an intelligence briefing on the facility for the IAEA during the summer on the assumption that the Iranians might “choose to disclose the facility themselves”. But he offered no explanation for the fact that there had been no briefing given to the IAEA or anyone else until Sep. 24 – three days after the Iranians disclosed the existence of the facility.
A major question surrounding the official story is why the Barack Obama administration had not done anything – and apparently had no plans to do anything – with its intelligence on the Iranian facility at Qom prior to the Iranian letter to the IAEA. When asked whether the administration had intended to keep the information in its intelligence briefing secret even after the meeting with the Iranians on Oct. 1, the senior official answered obliquely but revealingly, “I think it’s impossible to turn back the clock and say what might have been otherwise.”
In effect, the answer was no, there had been no plan for briefing the IAEA or anyone.
News media played up the statement by the senior administration official that U.S. intelligence had been “aware of this facility for years”.
But what was not reported was that he meant only that the U.S. was aware of a possible nuclear site, not one whose function was known.
The official in question acknowledged the analysts had not been able to identify it as an enrichment facility for a long time. In the “very early stage of construction,” said the official, “a facility like this could have multiple uses.” Intelligence analysts had to “wait until the facility had reached the stage of construction where it was undeniably intended for use as a centrifuge facility,” he explained.
The fact that the administration had made no move to brief the IAEA or other governments on the site before Iran revealed its existence suggests that site had not yet reached that stage where the evidence was unambiguous.
A former U.S. official who has seen the summary of the administration’s intelligence used to brief foreign governments told IPS he doubts the intelligence community had hard evidence that the Qom site was an enrichment plant. “I think they didn’t have the goods on them,” he said.
Originally posted by Zenlike
Originally posted by Griever
I don't know if the American people could handle another one of these wars, Its ridiculous the troops are often streched too thin on multiple tours. How would they alleviate this problem another draft. I'd think there would probably be a public outcry the populus is sick and tired of the way things are. Compiled with the ressesion. this won't end well
No I don't think they would even think about attempting a draft now because if anything it would kick off a revolution faster then anything else.
Originally posted by john124
reply to post by ModernAcademia
Ron Paul's just looking for attention and pandering to his own crowd. They're no different to the pro-war crowd, as both views are based entirely on the nuclear issue, instead of more important internal issues within Iran. Reality is somewhere in the middle, and Iran did not comply with IAEA rules that they agreed with and tried to unilaterally walk away from, which is illegitimate according to international law.
The real issues are the failures of the iranian govt. to prevent widespread protests. They cannot even speak at their own universities, never mind use diplomacy at the UN, or govern their own country. They're not even in control, as they are reactive and not exactly pro-active. The regime would prefer us to talk about their nuclear weapons programme so our attention is diverted away from their own collapse at the hands of their own people. I'm sure they would love Israel to bomb this 2nd facility, so they can rally their people against the west. Either way they're finished and deserve to be, and that doesn't make me pro-war, it makes me observant.
A leader in the revolutionary guards admitted that a couple of Friday's ago on Qod's day - opposition protests in Tehran were around 2 million, and 4 million around Iran. This was after sites like PressTV announced the crowds were millions in support of Palestine. It's these small truths that they let slip which tells us exactly why the regime have lost control.
[edit on 30-9-2009 by john124]