It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Ahmadinejad: Not A 'Damn Thing' Israel Can Do to Stop Nuclear Program

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 01:29 PM
I would really love to see Israel prove him wrong. And to see the look on his face when they do.

posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 01:38 PM
reply to post by noangels

Iran is doing everything by the books with its nuclear program,but the western media and the BBC are putting on every twit on twitter they can find to scream stolen elections and big up the nuclear issue when this very country is going to expand our nuclear energy sites in the near future

I am glad this person put me on ignore, because this comment is just silly what he wrote.

The regime blamed the bbc for neda's death, and shortly after stated she was still alive, and then blamed protestors afterwards. I really cannot see why people take such claims seriously.

I personally know a few of the Iranian's who have been in the protests, and are actually brave enough to go back for protests in January. Interestingly none of them work for the BBC, MOSSAD or MI5. It's amusing how people still think twitter is the only source of information.

They even allow the wipe israel off the map comments to pour off politicians lies,without stopping them in their decietfull tracks and informing them their wrong

The comment was the zionist regime to vanish from the pages of time. It's not like he said lets be friends with Israel. I would prefer to judge the revolutionary guards, their commanders and leaders, from their actions rather than their words.

posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 01:43 PM

Originally posted by noangels
reply to post by seagull

Do you think POTUS roles his own dice,or dances to other peoples tunes?

I doubt he even rolls his own joints, I mean cigarettes.

posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 01:45 PM

Originally posted by mars1
reply to post by john124

You know some mite say that about Gordon Brown or Obama or any politician for that mater because all they do is talk a load of bull they all think and stutter before they speak specially Obama without his teleprompter.


Sure... although I wasn't referring to stutters, I was referring to the choice of words. There is a difference between a script-writer for Brown or Obama, and a military coup d'etat government that's unstable.

I've never liked Obama's speeches, especially on foreign policies. He sounded too hopeful & naive, expecting to gain too much from open arms. He would make a great president when the human race is on the eve of world peace.

I think Obama does have his own input into his speeches because they are exactly the same as when he was campaigning for office. In fact, it sounds as though he's still campaigning at times, and I'm sure I've seen him speak on a few occasions for over half an hour without looking down at a script.

[edit on 2-12-2009 by john124]

posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 01:53 PM
reply to post by JIMC5499

The atomic bombs dropped on Japan in 1945 were tiny compared to the massive monsters available today. And YES I do believe atomic bombs are bad, even back then. The initial destruction was bigger then anything else used, but the aftermath still is evident to this very day. Not to mention DU being used in Iraq and Palestine and God knows where else.

posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 02:45 PM
reply to post by someoldguy

Not to take it too far off topic...

But the Atomic bombs, as horrific as they were, were the least horrific of a laundry list of horrific outcomes during the Pacific War. The most horrific being the wholesale invasion of the Home Islands. Millions might have perished in the ensuing bloodbath.

Iran having the Bomb is a bad thing. Not so much because they might use it...I don't think they're suicidal...but because of who might get a hold of one...Iran is not the most stable, politically, of places. It's my humble opinion that another revolution is simmering there...can't prove it...just feel it. Hope I'm wrong. But a politically unstable nuclear power, along with an even more unstable Pakistan, doesn't bode well for pleasant dreams...

posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 03:18 PM
reply to post by seagull

What about Pakistan they have the bomb very unstable at the mo.
Then there's North Korea well we all know about uncle Kim now he is VERY unstable and they say he mite have the bomb so there is more than we need to worry about but Iran has done nothing to anyone at the moment there is no proof that Iran is making a bomb but this situation is going like the build up to Iraq so i do not have a good feeling as time tick's by.
Strange times we live in at the moment.


posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 03:30 PM
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

I tell you it makes on wonder where the 30,000 extra troops will be stationed in Afghanistan and if it will be close to the Iranian border.

Well I hope they are going to stationed near to Iran and that we (the USA and Israel) kick the sh** out of Mr Pyjamas in his Marks & Spencer jacket and his Muppets they call soilders.

posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 03:43 PM
reply to post by mars1

I mentioned Pakistan in my post. North Korea managed to slither through untouched, though. Thanks for reminding me...

posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 03:45 PM
reply to post by minkey53

Now that is not a way to talk can you imagine how bad it would be going to war with Iran just think about that because it will affect you.
Kick there ass you say that from behind your monitor you should not think like that if you were one of the soldiers around there so think about what you wish for because one day you mite get it and then you got to think about what Russia and China going to do they have ties with Iran.


posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 03:46 PM
reply to post by x2Strongx

I think you should try reading some neutral sources instead of fox news. They have long history and tendency to distort words and the actual news. Try Yahoo news or something.

By the way I agree Iran has complete rights under NPT to make nuclear power stations. On the words of Ahemjedinad..I would say brave words and bravo for standing up for Iran.

[edit on 2-12-2009 by December_Rain]

posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 03:53 PM
reply to post by seagull

Yes you did sorry about that this is going to be a bad situation if one of the sides don't back down but for some reason i can not see that happening mabey Iran will at last minute.


posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 04:05 PM
let him say w/e he wants to say, all the media is going to do is over polarize it, i dont know why you guys give this any attention at all, or even visit cnn, msnbc, and the likes, there should be a nationwide boycott of all MSM outlets, and let independent news sources get the ratings.

if things keep up, im moving outa here!

posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 04:07 PM
Iran is not the one that needs to back down. Iran is not threatening other nations because they MIGHT be trying to obtain nuclear power or nukes, or already have them (secretly).

posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 04:12 PM

Originally posted by seagull
What many of you forget is that he doesn't say anything with out the express approval of the ruling mullahs. They, not him, are in charge...

He can say whatever the hell he wants, and it's essentially meaningless... What are the mullahs saying?

Then let's have a conversation.

By mullahs do you mean the Iranian parliament ministers? I didn't knew they were all mullahs, do you?

Until early 20th century, the term mullah was used in Iranian hawzas (seminaries) to refer to low-level clergy who specialized in telling stories of Ashura, rather than teaching or issuing fatwas. Today, the term mullah is sometimes used as a derogatory term for any Islamic cleric. It is common in Iran to refer to an ayatollah or other high level clerics, as a mullah, to ridicule his religious authority.[citation needed] In recent years, at least among Shia mullahs, the term ruhani (spiritual) has been promoted as an alternative to mullah and akhoond, free of pejorative connotations.[4]

Same as not all Israeli parliament ministers are Kike, US parliament ministers are Fundies or UK parliament ministers are all Fenian, I don't think all there are mullahs in Iran parliament. Or if they are mullahs then all US/UK/Israel parliament minsters must be Fundies/ Fenian/Kike right?
Going by your logic it would seem they all are but it isn't so.

Edit to add: I hate even typing the above derogatory words above I have never even spoken but this person Seagull seemed to be repeating that derogatory words over and over again. My apologies if I offended anyone, my intention was not to do that but to show the racist the racism that he/she is spouting.

[edit on 2-12-2009 by December_Rain]

[edit on 2-12-2009 by December_Rain]

posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 04:20 PM
reply to post by ugie1028

Funny you say why spend any time on a subject then post in the thread if it's not worth the time for you skip it obviously some find it interesting.
I just hope it dont turn in to a nasty situation.


posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 04:22 PM
He sort of has a point. Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty and as of now do not have nuclear weapons and are cooperating with inspections.

Israel is not a signatory to the treaty and they do have nuclear weapons and have they ever been inspected? I dunno...would be kind of hard to inspect something they deny having.

As to who fired the first salvo in the Israeli-Iranian pissing contest? I don't even remember anymore.

Ahmadinejad's sly-as-a-fox hardheadedness, as crazy as it sometimes sounds and maybe because it sometimes sounds crazy, in maintaining his country's position and points and in drawing the world's attention to what's going on over there is about all that stands in between Israel/the U.S. doing to Iran what's been done to Iraq. I'd hate for that to be happening to my country, to be living under that kind of contant attack.

posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 04:30 PM
if iran had all this time to build a nuke why diditn they test one already like NK did?

I think all this propaganda is just an excuse to get into their oil supply by the PTB. the same crap was being said about iraq before we invaded.

Just excuses to try to make a legal war on a country that has shown NO MILITARY aggression!

ITS ABOUT MIDDLE EAST CONTROL, NOT WMD'S! Its just an excuse for a pre-emptive strike to bring us into war with them.

[edit on 12/2/2009 by ugie1028]

posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 04:37 PM
I have seen no proof that Iran either is or is not engaged in an effort to build nuclear weapons. I do, however, take notice whenever one world leader talks of wiping another nation from the planet and all but daring someone to stop them... if that were the intention.

In sum, Tehran's rhetoric appears designed to gravely inflame the situation, almost as if there were some kind undercurrent wish to be attacked. And to that end, provoking Israel to such action could serve to unite Islam into an unholy jihad against the west.

If Ahmadinejad can successfully lead Iran into a mass martyrdom in the name of inviting a return of the Mahdi and/or that jihad against the infidel west, his place in heaven and the history books would be assured.

This is a damned if you do, damned if you don't moment because doing nothing may, in the long term, be worse than doing exactly what he appears to want.

Finally, none of this is to condemn Iran for what may well be a peaceful aim. As much as I personally don't like the idea of nuke plants for energy generation, it is their country. No argument. But the rhetoric is inflammatory and so Iran should be prepared to bear the responsibility of its own behavior.

posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 04:58 PM

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
All this political theatre we are being treated to on both sides of the aisle is bound to culminate in something big, bad and ugly sooner or later.

The question is why since the Iranian nation has been a peaceful one that's erradicated much of the poverty and disparity that was the hallmark of the pro-Western Shah's despotic regime.


I honestly feel that there is a vast conspiracy to start a Third World War the likes of which we have never seen or imagined and that all the leaders including Ahmadinejad, Obama and Netanyahu are all working together to stage the pretext for it.

Imam Proto,

It's pretty clear your handlers pay you by the word as mouthpiece for their marketing campaign. Basic stories to be hammered away being:

1) Jews (use the word "Zionists") are the source of all problems in the Middle East. This despite the entire region's political milieu being driven since post-WWII by oil and gas interests.

2) The Iranain Mullahs and the Revolutionary Guard would never harm a fly. Their active support and enabling of suberfuge conflicts and overt terrorism are purely national defense measures.

But even the most conservative Iranian expert doesn't pretend the country hasn't gone down the crapper economically since the Islamic Revolution. Were it not for 2005-8 oil prices flurry the country would be a basket case. And they're still not out of the woods.

There's good reason the 'old money' families and entrepreneurial class have fled the country. Why there is a powder keg of young Iranians not happy watching a small theocratic and military class drain oil profits while undoing thousands of years of culture.

A good economic summary here:

Pre-revolutionary Iran's economic development was rapid. Traditionally an agricultural society, by the 1970s Iran had achieved significant industrialization and economic modernization, largely helped by the growing worldwide demand for oil. However, the pace of growth had slowed dramatically by 1978, just before the Islamic Revolution. Since the fall of the Shah, economic recovery has proven elusive due to a combination of factors, including state interference in the economy and fluctuations in the global energy market. Economic activity was further disrupted by years of domestic political upheaval immediately following the revolution. These conditions were worsened by the war with Iraq and the decline in world oil prices beginning in late 1985.


mismanagement and inefficient bureaucracy, as well as political and ideological infighting, hampered the formulation and execution of a consolidated economic policy, and Iran fell short of the plan's goals. Economic growth was further hindered by a decrease in oil revenues in 1991 and growing external debt. Former president Khatami followed the market reform plans of his predecessor, President Rafsanjani, and indicated that he would pursue diversification of Iran's oil-reliant economy, although he made little progress; high inflation and expansive public transfer programs, as well as powerful economic and political vested interests, posed obstacles for rapid reform during the Khatami era.

Unemployment, a major problem even before the revolution, has continued to plague Iran. However, unemployment statistics only tell part of the story -- underemployment continues to affect a large portion of Iran’s young, educated workforce. Although Iran’s poorer, rural population initially enjoyed a psychological boost from the attention given them by the new Islamic government, they are only marginally better off in economic terms. The government has made some progress on rural development, including electrification, road building, and increased access to education, but Iran still suffers from inefficiencies related to agricultural land usage that are politically difficult to reconcile. The agriculture sector still suffers from shortages of capital, raw materials, and equipment- problems that date back to the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war.

Although Islam guarantees the right to private ownership, banks and some industries--including the petroleum, transportation, utilities, and mining sectors -- were nationalized after the revolution. Under President Rafsanjani, Iran first began to pursue some privatization through its nascent equities markets. However, the industrial sector, plagued by low labor productivity and shortages of raw materials and spare parts, remains uncompetitive against foreign imports.

Today, Iran's economy is struggling as a result of a bloated and inefficient state sector and an overdependence on the oil sector (which provides over 85% of government revenues). Although the Supreme Leader issued a decree in July 2006 to privatize 80% of the shares of most government-owned companies, private sector activity is typically limited to small-scale workshops, farming, and the service industry. As a result of inefficiencies in the economy, significant informal market activity flourishes and shortages of goods are common.

President Ahmadi-Nejad has failed to make any notable progress in fulfilling the goals of the nation's latest 5-year plan. A combination of price controls and subsidies continues to weigh down the economy, while administrative controls and widespread corruption undermine the potential for private-sector-led growth. President Ahmadi-Nejad has made known his plan to eliminate Iran’s inefficient subsidies on food and petroleum imports; however, whether this plan will be actually implemented is unclear. Previous government-led efforts at economic reform--such as fuel rationing in July 2007 and the imposition of the value added tax (VAT) in October 2008--were met with stiff resistance and violent protests.

High oil prices in recent years allowed Iran to greatly increase its export earnings and amass over $70 billion in foreign exchange reserves. However, with oil prices currently below $40 per barrel, the Iranian Government is facing a particularly worrisome economic situation. The government has heavily withdrawn from the country’s Oil Stabilization Fund and there have even been reports that President Ahmadi-Nejad’s administration has illegally dipped into the foreign exchange reserves. Inflation is approaching 30%, while the unemployment rate continues to be in the double digits. Widespread underemployment amongst Iran’s educated youths has convinced many to seek employment overseas.

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in