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.

 

Iran Rejects UN Nuclear Deal

page: 2
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 07:21 PM
link   
Well, Israel deploys Jericho I and II ballistic missles. The "I" can carry a 400kg payload. The "II" can carry a 1 MT warhead. The estimates put them at having 200 missles in their arsenal. (40-600 by some estimates).

So, They have the capability to level Iran.

The Jericho III missle carries a 1000 to a 1300 kg payload, a 750 kg nuclear warhead or configured with a 2 or 3 low yeild MIRV warheads.

en.wikipedia.org...(missile)

If IRAN is just now deploying nuclear warheads, they are a little behind.




posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 07:25 PM
link   
Who's to say Iran does not already have a nuke or two? or 20? or more?

I'm sure they have the smaller defensive nukes similar to the one's Russia gave to Cuba' in the past.



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by wdkirk
Well, Israel deploys Jericho I and II ballistic missles. The "I" can carry a 400kg payload. The "II" can carry a 1 MT warhead. The estimates put them at having 200 missles in their arsenal. (40-600 by some estimates).

So, They have the capability to level Iran.

The Jericho III missle carries a 1000 to a 1300 kg payload, a 750 kg nuclear warhead or configured with a 2 or 3 low yeild MIRV warheads.

en.wikipedia.org...(missile)

If IRAN is just now deploying nuclear warheads, they are a little behind.


You think IRan will attach a nuclear warhead to a missile and shoot it to Israel????????

LMAO..


Education. Learn some.



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 07:49 PM
link   
Well, since this is a thread about iran, and e3veryone has seriously forgotten the topic, this video is for use. Since when has this site become a forum for the media, so as I can forget.

Do yourself a favor, and reexamine what any replies, not all, have had to do with the thread topic. So I dare ask. What do you think? What would Isreal do if she were here, best friend?

Who could blame Iran, for wanting to keep it in the house. How long would it take for Iran to receive a bad uranium shipment from baxter anyway? Iran probably just wants to keep a close eye on the happenings anyway.

Just think... If you weren't a zionist, you would have thought that, and your country wouldn't have so many security risks itself, where ever your country really is.

After all .. .the zionists aren't done telling us what we think this means for them instead, And by the way, anything about Isreal is off topic. Bring me a mod.

Do someone a favor and get this video out there. I mean when your done with the lesson about Isreal, and what it means for the zionists. Start a thread for Isreal, by any menza necessary, at any coast 2 cost.

Try starting your sentences with things like.... I think Isreal is a world power, or I think this is Isreal's waterlu, Or I Think Israelies are the best spellers.



jUST THINK, YOU CANT TELL iSREAL WHEN SHE WAKES UP.



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 07:51 PM
link   
He did say ' defensive . As in , should Israel decide to strike first . As is your general recommendation and postulation on the situation anyway. But the only event in your world , would be that Iran were the aggressor and just went ahead and nuked out of pure rotten behaviour . A typical comment from a supporter of Israel, that any reply to an initial comment on Israeli aggression , is not seen as a reply to that aggression , but of some kind of anti-semetic bellicose promise of unwarranted menace and hostile intent.



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 08:00 PM
link   
Just wonder if this ties into Obama's decision for additional troops in Afghan'?

Sure hope nothing happens from this, cause Iran is not a push over like some of the other nations in that region, and they are crafty people and def. have the means to cause serious problems for Isreal and other countries.
And can I stress serious enough for Isreal and problems for the North America to.

For some of us here it would be problems like....say goodbye to the electricity for starters

That would not be good for December/January



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 08:07 PM
link   
sAY GOODBYE to the electricity has a time and a date as well. It's August 15, 2004.

I.E. Blackout 2004, ice cream melts re actors at the emmy's.

Id post a satalitte picture of what? that looks like but I might have a flashback!

Can I add something too
Thanks ATS



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 08:07 PM
link   
I think maybe it wasn't such a bad idea to reject the offer. If the material remains in Iran it is safer than it would be while it is being transferred to Russia. I'm not sure how they proposed to transport it in the first place. If it was hijacked enroute for instance exactly who would get blamed? The idea sounded to me like my step breaking. Instead of sawing the board to fix it,I should send it to Russia to get it sawed and have them ship it back so I can nail it in place. Oversimplified I know but the same idea. I still believe Iran is trying to get enough energy to refine their own petroleum and not have to cut anyone else in on the profit.



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 08:17 PM
link   
They never EVER planned on sending it out....it's all a delay tactic, just like how they played out with the Bush era' so Iran got' like 3 years to delay once again and see if Obama get's to be President again.

But now seems more of an attempt to get more countries involved to realy put presure and/or sanctions on Iran.



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by svenglezz
 


Russia won't let Iran be overrun like Iraq. The US would put bases there and Russia would loose control of the Caspian Sea.

Putin is calling the shots for Russia, the other guy is more like the vice president.

If Iran is attacked we might see a pleathera of shoulder launched surface to air missiles appear. We did it to the Russians in Afghanistan.

Also, think about this. Another war would almost certainly involve the use of depleted uranium munitions. Gasp. See the documentary "Blowing in the Wind". That stuff gets into the upper atmosphere and the jet stream.

I contend, by intuition that the chemtrails are polymers to bring the stuff to ground. In a few years we'll be drinking the DU ourselves, but for now we don't have to breathe it so much.



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by total newbie
reply to post by svenglezz
 


Russia won't let Iran be overrun like Iraq. The US would put bases there and Russia would loose control of the Caspian Sea.



NO they won't...

Why does the gen-pop of ATS think when Iran is attacked, that American contracters will drop in after the bombs.

Won't happen.



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by CanadianDream420

Originally posted by total newbie
reply to post by svenglezz
 


Russia won't let Iran be overrun like Iraq. The US would put bases there and Russia would loose control of the Caspian Sea.



NO they won't...

Why does the gen-pop of ATS think when Iran is attacked, that American contracters will drop in after the bombs.

Won't happen.


Because it's pattern behavior. Doesn't one of the Psalms say (to paraphrase) "A fool returns to his folly as like a dog returns to his vomit".



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 11:05 AM
link   
What many people seem to miss completely, is that there is already a deal in place, it's called the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which Iran is signatory to, and which they have complied with.
Sending their fuel material elsewhere for enrichment and any processing is NOT a requirement of the NNPT, but of Israel, the US and a small number of other Israeli bought states. So, Iran is under no obligation whatsoever to send anything anywhere, yet the antagonists - mainly Israel, US and UK - are making this an issue as if it's some kind of legal requirement.



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kandinsky

So who are the bad guys? Who gets to point the finger?


Well Apparently the UN.
World leaders to meet on Iran's failure to halt nuclear program

Iran lashed out Thursday against a new warning from President Obama of tougher sanctions over its nuclear program, dismissing such measures as out of date and threatening a resolute response to U.S. "deception and mischief."

The verbal clash came as the United States and five other world powers prepared to meet in Brussels on Friday to discuss what steps could be taken against Tehran for its refusal so far to accept a deal aimed a resolving a long-running dispute over its uranium enrichment program. Attending the meeting are representatives from the other four permanent members of the U.N. Security Council -- Russia, China, Britain and France -- plus Germany, news agencies reported.



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Perhaps it's a little misleading to say that the UN is pushing this. Those countries listed do not make up the UN, merely the security council.

Even the headline is alarmist. Iran, being a signatory to the NNPT, is under no obligation to halt it's enrichment which has so far been shown to be low grade for it's power station fuel, nothing more.

No other signatory has been required to agree to such restrictions and, considering how the Iranians got stiffed by France, basically stealing the Uranium that was shipped to them once before, one can understand their reluctance to do so again.



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 10:28 PM
link   
If Israel wants to attack Iran, why don't they. If the US wants to attack Iran, whats the hold up.

These two countries must now have had some kind of moral revolution. I live in the US.

If either Israel or the US could attack Iran without meaningful consequenses, they would have done it already.



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 03:54 AM
link   
reply to post by total newbie
 


They wont attack without a cast iron guarantee that the US will support the actions and stop anything coming back the other way - which they wont get; also iran`s means of retaliation is all TEL based - and even in 2003 , with all the airbourne radars , no one could find the iraqi mobile systems.

which means that iran has the ability ro retaliate , in a means which is incredibly hard to find , and in numbers to saturate israel`s ABM systems.

and iran has stated that IF israel attack its nuclear reactor then dimona WILL get bombed.



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 05:20 AM
link   
I have a feeling Israel is happy about this...

Israel will not wait...Israel cannot wait. They know every month that goes by, the Iranians are getting closer to having this ability. They know they need to nip it in the bud. I wouldn't be surprised to see action from Israel in the next couple months. They don't care what other countries think of them, they've mentioned this many times. They said if they feel threatened they will strike, and i believe them.

[edit on 11/20/2009 by Mr Poopra]



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 06:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Mr Poopra
 


iran hasn`t started a war in 1000 years - so even if they actually get a nnuke - they wont use it.



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin
reply to post by Mr Poopra
 


iran hasn`t started a war in 1000 years - so even if they actually get a nnuke - they wont use it.


Then why get one? Why go through all this trouble? If you don't think that one of these warheads will eventually get into the hands of Hezbollah or some other group, you are mistaken.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join