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.

 

U.N. wants swift response from Iran on fuel proposal

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 02:13 PM
link   

U.N. wants swift response from Iran on fuel proposal


www.reuters.com

The IAEA director-general warned other countries not to "jump the gun" or be swayed by politics, urging them to allow the IAEA to conduct its inspections thoroughly and properly.

Apparently referring to intelligence mistakes made in pre-war Iraq, ElBaradei said, "We need to assess the veracity of intelligence information."

He added: "Force should never be used unless every other option has been exhausted, and only then within the bounds of international law ... All of these lessons are applica
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 02:13 PM
link   
It looks like the U.S. and Israel are looking to do another Iraq, but this time on Iran. Not only that, but looks like they also want to use more bogus "Intelligence".

It's kind of sad they're making up stuff about Iran, but I'm sure that Iran can fend for themselves in a battle with these folks.

www.reuters.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by MegaCurious
 


Yes they can fend just like Iraq did. Who won the Iraq vs Iran war? It took us like 2 weeks to be done with the "war" part of the Iraq war.

Iran really stands very little chance if the US and Israel decide they want war.



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by whoshotJR
 





Yes they can fend just like Iraq did. Who won the Iraq vs Iran war? It took us like 2 weeks to be done with the "war" part of the Iraq war.


If you call that a victory. All that did was awaken more of the sleeping sheep in the world.

WOMD = X
Al-Qaeda = X

Why is America there = $$$



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by disfugured
reply to post by whoshotJR
 





Yes they can fend just like Iraq did. Who won the Iraq vs Iran war? It took us like 2 weeks to be done with the "war" part of the Iraq war.


If you call that a victory. All that did was awaken more of the sleeping sheep in the world.

WOMD = X
Al-Qaeda = X

Why is America there = $$$




I didn't call it a victory because of the reasons you stated above. What I did say was the actual war part like the bombing and such didn't take more then weeks before Iraq crumbled.



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 02:59 PM
link   
Mission Accomplished.

ggnxtmap??



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by whoshotJR
 


I agree with that, but nothing was achieved in doing such.



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 03:27 PM
link   
Exactly. Ever since about 2 weeks into the Iraq war its been an insurgency battle. Iraq's actual MILITARY MAHINE was decimated in days. It wasnt even a battle really. Iran would suffer the exact same fate.

Now has the US or Israel said anything about occupation or regime change for Iran? All i have heard was a bombing campaign to detsroy their nuclear facilities.




Originally posted by whoshotJR
reply to post by MegaCurious
 


Yes they can fend just like Iraq did. Who won the Iraq vs Iran war? It took us like 2 weeks to be done with the "war" part of the Iraq war.

Iran really stands very little chance if the US and Israel decide they want war.



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 05:09 PM
link   
The only way this doesn't escalate is if Iran or any other country does not hit back. If and when it turns into something bigger than nuclear enrichment facilities, the world will take sides and things could get uglier in a hurry.

I can absolutely envision the rest of the world watching with popcorn in hand as Iraeli (a.k.a US) perfect their precision bombing capabilities on every piece of infrastructure that could possibly be an aid to producing nuclear material.

In the initial days of "shock and awe", the US was calling targets to alert them of their impending destruction. This time, I forsee an entire bombing intenerary being provided to the media so the world is 100% clear on the intentions of any military action. We'll probably even be given video from the heads of those missles hitting the published targets in the correct order.

The thing is, I don't think the rest of the world is going to lose sleep over Iran losing their ability to produce nuclear fuel.



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 05:26 PM
link   
The only folks who would really have a problem with Iran's facilities getting hit are the Iranians, the Syrians, and of course the turdknockers at the UN.

It will be quick and over with.

No invading forces, point attacks, and we won't have to worry about getting caught up in a civil war as happened in Iraq.



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by dooper
The only folks who would really have a problem with Iran's facilities getting hit are the Iranians, the Syrians, and of course the turdknockers at the UN.

It will be quick and over with.

No invading forces, point attacks, and we won't have to worry about getting caught up in a civil war as happened in Iraq.


Yeah right.
...and after the attacks the Iranians are just going to sit around and go "oh well, we can't have nuclear weapons, let's have another hukka".

I suggest that if this does happen that things will get ugly for America (sorry..the U.S.A) and Israel.

I have the same problem with their facilities getting hit as I do with the Yanks' facilities...that is: none...I support the U.N. but I'm not a turdknocker and you come across as homophobic with comments like that.

You will have a lot to worry about if it occurs.



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by dooper
The only folks who would really have a problem with Iran's facilities getting hit are the Iranians, the Syrians, and of course the turdknockers at the UN.

It will be quick and over with.

No invading forces, point attacks, and we won't have to worry about getting caught up in a civil war as happened in Iraq.


Yeah right.
...and after the attacks the Iranians are just going to sit around and go "oh well, we can't have nuclear weapons, let's have another hukka".

I suggest that if this does happen that things will get ugly for America (sorry..the U.S.A) and Israel.

I have the same problem with their facilities getting hit as I do with the Yanks' facilities...that is: none...I support the U.N. but I'm not a turdknocker and you come across as homophobic with comments like that.

You will have a lot to worry about if it occurs.



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 06:43 PM
link   
Well remember Clinton TWICE launched missiles at Iraq to set back thier wepaons programs. What did they do? They sat back and didnt do anything. Much in the same way Iran will when it comes down to it. Iran's threats are just that...threats.

Does anyone really think the US (OR THE WORLD FOR THAT MATTER) would just sit idly by while they close the straight of Hormuz? China and Russia may be friendly towards Iran but you let them choke off thier oil supply and see what happens.

[edit on 2-11-2009 by princeofpeace]



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 08:31 PM
link   
If anyone has the time or is genuinely interested in reading what is and what is not then a link is provided at the bottom of this post. A conclusion of the report is also being posted for those who simply do not have the time or simply do not wish to read the full report.

I do suggest reading the full document as this will help you reply to the many threads that are being posted within ATS regarding Iran and U.S. relations.




Conclusion


Mistrust between the United States and Iran’s Islamic regime has run deep for almost three decades, and many argue that it is unlikely to be quickly overcome, even if the Obama Administration initiates—and Iran accepts—comprehensive direct talks with Iran. As noted, that possibility might have been made more remote by the violent dispute over the June 12 presidential election in Iran. Despite the internal power struggle, many experts say that all factions in Iran are united on major national security issues and that U.S.-Iran relations might not improve unless or until the Islamic regime is removed or moderates substantially, even if a nuclear deal is reached and implemented.
Others say that, despite Ahmadinejad’s presidency, the United States and Iran have a common long-term interest in stability in the Persian Gulf and South Asia regions in the aftermath of the defeat of the Taliban and the regime of Saddam Hussein and that major diplomatic overtures might now yield fruit.

Link

[edit on 2-11-2009 by tristar]



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 09:36 PM
link   
reply to post by aorAki
 



I support the U.N. but I'm not a turdknocker


I think he was referring to El Baredei holding hands, smiling and kissing Mahmoud Ahmadinejad last month. Funny how El Baredei makes lots of visits to Iran, yet it took 4 weeks for Iran to allow inspections.





[edit on 2-11-2009 by john124]




top topics



 
3

log in

join