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.


U.S., Israeli Attack on Iran Would Be 'Unacceptable' - Russia Military

page: 5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 04:42 PM
It makes no difference who strikes first, because if either Israel or Iran launches nukes, then it's probably game over for everyone.

Israel has shown more restraint than Iran. I don't think so.
The Israeli government has a lot more blood on it's hands than the Iranian government. Iran hasn't attacked anyone. Shame you can't say the same about Israel.

posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 04:43 PM

Originally posted by JanusFIN
Should we also remember now that Iran havent attacked against anyone for what - 300 yrs?

There is no base for blaming Iran to be aggressor in Gulf. We have known for years - at least from 2001, where that the sword of USA will turn when time will come - "Axis of Evil" - Yeah, right!

Its all about US hegemony, Zionist banksters domination, and New World Order. WMD:s are once again the same bad excuse, and just Media food for brainwashing masses - to show excuse to drive agenda.

Just 3 years ago US admitted that there is no Nuke program in Iran, and now suddenly everyone is talking about it... Wake up guys!

Dont forget the facts!

Why would they attack directly when they can just have effective proxy attacks visa-vis terrorism. Its much much cheaper and also the added benefit of plausible deniability.

posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 05:26 PM

This breaking news about Russian "Unacceptable" stance towards Iranian attack is totally ignored in western media. We have been waited years for this official statement, and now when we have have it - western MSM is in silence about it.

Lies in todays media!

Not only silencing from Russian statements, but also western MSM is giving propably very false information about Chinese stance in Iranian sanctions -

Obama, China's Hu Press for Strong Words on Iran

Giving for crowds a picture that Chinese are backing US driven sanctions - but when we look to Russia we see that same time from Russian official newsroom we get very different news -

Iran nuclear issue must be resolved by dialogue - China's Jintao

Who do you believe?

I would choose RIA and newsroom from member state of SCO in this.

posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 05:29 PM
figures Russia would make this statement now, now on the eve of Obama's two-day nuclear summit in Washington that begins today. "President Barack Obama and presidents, prime ministers and other top officials from 47 countries start work Monday on a battle plan to keep nuclear weapons out of terrorist hands...

Seems more like Moscow is trying to take some of the bluster out of what would be the largest assembly of world leaders hosted by an American president since 1945

posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 05:36 PM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 06:36 PM
Very interesting, though I do not see anything of direct threat towards the US or Isreal from Russia in the OP's linked articles.

Menvedev could simply mean that the use of nuclear weapons in a strike against Iran will destabalize the Middle East as a region, and that would constitute a global 'problem' as we would all feel the backblow.

His supporting stance could literally mean that Russia would officially condemn the action, if it were to happen.

Notice, there really isn't any commited wording being used. It is still ambiguous and indirect.

It could even be a 'disclaimer', taking the opportunity to show where they stand as they know things that we don't about the strike coming soon maybe?

Remember, in the case of a Isreali/American hit on Iran, Russia could play the indirect support card 'a la' CIA helping the Muhajhadin against Russia in Afghanistan in the 80's by supplying them with stinger missiles, which accounted for 400+ Hind losses and broke the back of Russia's invasion there.

posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 06:38 PM

Originally posted by JanusFIN

So - Thats it then? Just one hour ago Russia has announced their stance in most debated issue in the world - possible attack to Iran.

Debate from new air defence deliveries is highly involved here too. That "Mersad" was clearly cover operation for deliveries, announced by Iran yesterday but possibly it was just too weak to last, and Russia is forced to announce their stance about defending Iran - Finally.

How did you come to the conclusion Russia will defend Iran?
Because they stated that an attack on Iran would be unacceptable?
There is a big stretch between that, and actually defending Iran with force.
Wishful thinking. Russia and America wont fight directly over Iran.
Russia may take action elsewhere, as retaliation. But not directly against American forces, just like American forces didn't go to defend Georgia, America's so called ally.

Results of this can be devastating. Without a doubt China goes with Russia in this, and this means SCO involvement. China just cant afford to loose Iranian oil and gas, just like I have thought too...

Without a doubt? So you work for the highest levels of the Chinese government and are involved in their military & foreign policy planning?

If China can't afford to lose Iranian oil and gas, why would they wait for Russia to act? They have their own interests as you said..but again, they wont go toe to toe with the Americans(nor vice versa).

In other hand, it was wise to use Chief Of Staff to give this announcement, so Putin and Medvedev still has their faces left for some diplomacy in future, but as words heard now by commander of Russian army - we have heard Russian official stance after years of speculations.

So you just found out that Russia would find an attack on Iran unacceptable? This isn't breaking news.

Anything is possible from now on. Russias actions in Kyrgyzia, Dagestan, Georgia, Serbia... Even in polish flight accident, we can assume that those are hostile to all preparations going on for making possibilities to attack Iran - or any other country.

This breaking news if anything, huh?
(visit the link for the full news article)

What has any of that got to do with your perceived belief of what preparations are for an attack on Iran, much less hostile toward those preparations?

A lot of wishful thinking.

posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 06:46 PM
reply to post by BLV12

I think that only thing I did, was I just revealed secret US media agenda.

Watch your evening news and keep your ignorance.

Good night!

posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 06:47 PM
Old news, for russia has already said --quote--an attack on iran would be an attack on russia--end quote. And that as last fall-early

posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 06:50 PM
Heh, I bet Iran is feeling pretty confident right about now. The largest country in the world just officially said no one could touch 'em. This is starting to get really interesting now, imo. Can't wait to see where all the cards lay. Who's actually with who all the way. This could turn out real ugly.

posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 06:54 PM
reply to post by BLV12

I have to agree with you, if you alarmists out there think that the US and Russia will jump at the chance to face off, think again.

Most likely we will not see a super power face-off WW3, if America/Isreal attack Iran, and it will be Isreal that initiates it, then the result of that action; the whole region being destabilised and financial crisis around the globe as the price of oil rockets, will be categorised as WW3.

Remember a 'World War' does not have to involve the entire world, far from it. Infact a prolonged war involving multiple sides, or in this case, a region, would certainly attain that classification.

Russia and America have far too much to lose by engaging each other, as BLV12 stated, the US did not intervene in Georgia, and it simply comes down to 'not being worth it'.

Most of what we read that sends some people into alarmist overdrive is simply brinkmanship, it has been since the 'Cold War' and before that.

Would you risk losing a Queen to save a Pawn?

Now if any of the major players i.e. United States, Russia, China, United Kingdom, India were to launch a direct attack against each other, then you can expect the 'end game'.

However, would you risk the total annihilation of your people? And if so, why?

[edit on 12-4-2010 by Skellon]

posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 07:00 PM

Originally posted by Foppezao
I agree with slayer that people underestimate the possibility of a nuclear Iran and that it would bring balance.

The imbalance is not created by the `alleged` Iranian attempt to get a nuclear weapon , it is the existing nuclear stockpile of Israel which is the catalyst for this arms race.

Edit to add : Look, however it got started , the pieces are now in motion ...... a world of actions and consequences - same as its always been.

[edit on 12-4-2010 by UmbraSumus]

posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 07:06 PM
reply to post by BLV12

your right and in fact if you read between the lines its a warning to Iran. Apparently the Russians are warning they dont want a nuclear Iran either. Rule number one of international politics is all ways ignore the first statement and wait for the but. You can also tell he doesnt think its a good idea to supply aa missiles but concedes hell follow orders.

posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 07:10 PM
reply to post by Retrovertigo

Sorry,but you are wrong about the palestinians being the most
persecuted people on the planet.The Israelis' have held that title
for thousands of years.
Why should the U.S. try to be "friendly" with a nation that would
wipe out the U.S. along with Israel,if given the chance?

posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 07:14 PM

Originally posted by Wolftotem
Ok....Just trying to wrap my mind around everything that is going on...

1. Israel is reportedly about to deport thousands of Palestinians
2. Israel has opened a huge bomb shelter in Tel Aviv
3. Iran is trying to clear out the capital of Tehran due to "earthquake" fears
4. Russia and the US have agreed to "disarm" 1/4 - 1/3 of nukes
5. Russia is reportedly arming Iran with missile system shortly after selling missile systems to China
6. Russians are warning US not to attack Iran
7. Obama is stating we wont use nukes....while Hilary declares loopholes in his statements leaving opportunities to bomb in case of biological attacks
8. US is warning (again) of possible oil shortages - this time by the year 2015

Hmmmm......did I miss anything?

Looks like four governments are trying to not so subtly prepare us for coming conflicts (to put it mildly).

Here are some of the threads referenced in the above post...

Very interesting...mmmm.... i think you only missed one other thing -

The other day Obama announced that everyone has to desperatley try to rid the world of all the missing nuclear material that we all know exists.

Put what you said together with this and I smell a big huge stinking rat .

posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 07:17 PM

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by Kram09
reply to post by SLAYER69

Hmmmm....well considering Israel's past actions in the Middle East, I'd say yes.

Don't you mean the west bank, Gaza Strip?

Let's be real here, Israel hasn't moved unprovoked outside of the strip. Israel has Killed Palestinians. Iran has killed Iranians.

Edit to add in recent history not the 6 day war.

[edit on 12-4-2010 by SLAYER69]

How about Dubai ? Thats outside the strip.

Face it Israel runs state sponsored terrorist acts all over the place. We heard about Dubai. How many other operations did they get away with ?

It's a rogue state, run by mad dogs, with secret nuclear weapons, who want to attack Iran or anyone else who oppose them.

And they have the support of/control of the only country on the planet who have actually used nukes in anger ... USA .... twice.

Truely frightening

posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 07:18 PM

Originally posted by itsawild1
Old news, for russia has already said --quote--an attack on iran would be an attack on russia--end quote. And that as last fall-early

Russia may have said this ... but ... they have also said that a "nuclear Iran" is unacceptable.
China has also said the same thing, in the same article piece.
Look it up on Reuters.

posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 07:30 PM

Originally posted by capgrup
As far as that goes, why don't
your country allow open immigration of Palestinians.
I just had to ask because I have never seen an answer.

Oh, but we do, we're up our ass in immigrants from the wars you've been waging, last year we took in 102 thousand of 'em, in a country that's only 9 million deep that's a huge amount.

posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 07:34 PM
Because of the manner in which Russia listed Israel and the USA together implied that at this time in history, a loser joining forces with a coward can accomplish nothing but insignificant utterances and child like displays of juvenile mentality. Russia is implying that neither the USA or Israel is exempt from entertaining nuclear cruise missiles should they decide to attack Iran. Add in China, India and Pakistan and pretty soon the USA could be as lonely as Israel is today.

Time will tell if this leads to WWIII.

Thanks for the posting.

posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 07:37 PM
I dedicate those next 30 seconds to the brains of top-notch CIA scenario writers who are right now busting their butts to come up with a good old casus belli coverup between China and Russia.
Securing your factories and taking out a rising rival in Arctic and Pacific resources isn't such a bad move. Just work on the project, shut up about it, and once ready...just wait for the best opportunity.

new topics

top topics

<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in