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.S. willing to consider weaker Iran sanctions

page: 2
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 10:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Truth1000
 


Saddam was an egomaniac just like Iran's Imwearingpajama is.
The only REAL difference is that Iran has openly and publicly stated their nuclear development unlike Saddam's BS game of shell.

China is actually supplying Iran with Fuel. Source They are not heavily reliant on their out put yet. But want to secure a future source. Contrary to popular opinion the US has agreed to supply that source for them and more.




posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 10:08 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Yeah, kinda like when the Russians agreed to take their uranium for enrichment and then ship it back to them - I guess they got dealt a better hand from the Chinese. Any wonder these are the only two bona fide members of the security council that refuse to back tougher sanctions.



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 10:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Legion2112
 


Well outside of Venezuela and Iran China is really screwed although Russia has tons of fuel they and China ARE NOT GREAT BED fellows!


I could post more and I'll counter post but even the Russians are more than a bit upset over Cheap Chinese exports.


It boils down to the renminbi China wake up! A Real war is not worth it.
Play the game. You'll get most of what you want.

Win Win


[edit on 14-4-2010 by SLAYER69]



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by Legion2112
 


I could post more and I'll counter post but even the Russians are more than a bit upset over Cheap Chinese exports.



Dude that's the hardest I've laughed in a while... great response



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 10:39 PM
link   
These joke sanctions will be the last straw for Israel.With the added blow of Damascus arming Hezbollah with Scuds that can hit any target in Israel i would expect an Israeli first strike soon.



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 10:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Curio
Israel will not let Iran get much further with its nuclear work: Fact. Israel cannot defeat Iran without nukes: Fact. I think we can see where this is going.


I don't know about that last one, Israel's military is no joke. They get a bad rap in the recent conflict because that was largely reserves, but their military is quite strong. They are more than able to protect themselves without nukes...besides (even though Israel doesn't see it this way) Iran just wants nukes so it can use it as a bargaining chip...they will never use them. It wouldn't even make sense to use them, it would render the land useless for decades. If they nuked Jerusalem the Muslim world would destroy them itself.

[edit on 14-4-2010 by yellowcard]



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 10:55 PM
link   
reply to post by AgentX09
 


Why do you think I'm a little freaked over this sanction crap? If they think we're bowing to the Chinese and the Russians then anything resembling detente will vanish in a heartbeat.



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 11:40 PM
link   
The turning point is the 2006 Lebanon War. Israel has become impotent. It can't even defeat a small Hezbollah militia of 3,000 men. Even with complete air superiorty on their side. Hezbollah is the most anti-Jewish organization in the world, and Israel can't do nothing about it.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 01:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Solomons
It will be a blood bath and without American support or the use of nuclear weapons Israel has a very high chance of becoming a smoldering pile of debris.


Yeah, just like it did in the Six Day War, eh?


Originally posted by yellowcard
Iran just wants nukes so it can use it as a bargaining chip...they will never use them. It wouldn't even make sense to use them, it would render the land useless for decades.


That depends on a variety of factors, not the least of which are the yield and burst height of the weapon in question, so as a blanket statement it ain't necessarily so.

Iranian governmental mindset, as opposed to diplomatic reasoning, is another factor to consider in whether they "will" or "won't".



If they nuked Jerusalem the Muslim world would destroy them itself.


Iran knows that. They also know that their OWN population would turn on them dramatically if they nuked Jerusalem/al Quds. Unfortunately, they ALSO know that 80% of the Israeli population, as well as the seat of government, resides in Tel Aviv. My money says that Tel Aviv would be the Iranian target, whether directly or by proxy, rather than Jerusalem.


Originally posted by coolieno99
The turning point is the 2006 Lebanon War. Israel has become impotent. It can't even defeat a small Hezbollah militia of 3,000 men. Even with complete air superiorty on their side. Hezbollah is the most anti-Jewish organization in the world, and Israel can't do nothing about it.


Simply because one DOESN'T pound an adversary into bug dust, it doesn't necessarily follow that one CAN'T. Motivational factors for said pounding must be taken into account - whether or not the response will have the desired effect of mitigating the attack on hand, and how the response will affect the opinions of possible or potential supporters. For example, I wouldn't use an 81mm mortar to kill a fly on a wall (such action would disturb my neighbors somewhat), but that large concentration of armed guys coming across the moors at me? Yeah, they're fair game for the mortar, neighbors sensitivities be damned if it's a matter of my survival.

Expand that thought to nuclear scale.

[edit on 2010/4/15 by nenothtu]



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 02:09 AM
link   
I have to admit that I really do see Obama as a modern day Chamberlain, not the Hitler lover that everyone represents him as but the silly man who was trying to please everyone all the time.. (never a workable policy)

A man who sought peace half heartedly, but was not willing to pay the price for peace.. a man who fought war half heartedly, but also not willing pay the price for war..

The West really is in Limbo at the moment, the US polcies are confused, muddled and contradict each other.. (the UKs match those in the US in that regard) and if anything opens the door to another war.. in my mind it is that confused approach. and that is what will happen if we continue down this route.

Either seek real peace with Iran, drop all the sanctions and make them a partner again or show a real determination that standing up to Iran is the right thing to do.

Caveat:
Please do not think I am equating Iran with Nazis.. I'm just using Chamberlain as an example of what can happen with confused, muddled and contradictory polcies.

[edit on 15/4/10 by thoughtsfull]



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 02:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by boondock-saint
as Dubya said

A coalition of the willing


That's the first thing I thought.

Who cares about weaker sanctions when you have an international army?



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 02:26 AM
link   
I think some of us/you are forgetting just how effing powerful, sophisticated, destructive, far reaching, and mind blowing the US military really is in their weapon systems and ability to fight a war. We have 67 aircraft carriers with the next country Britain with only 40. We have 151 F-22 Raptors in service. I mean that right there is MINDBLOWING to think about. Do you any of you HONESTLY think ANY country in the world right now would stand a chance against the US in an all out war? HELL NO! Not even China or Russia.

However, that being said.........look at how bogged down we are in Afghanistan and Iraq. The problem with the middle east is the days of fighting a conventional war are over. The US government and US military knows this. The most important reason for not attacking Iran is economical. Another war in the middle east would send the world oil market into a tail spin. This is the biggest reason why you will not see a major escalation of war with Iran. Compound that with the fact that even if they have the ability to launch just ONE................ONE nuclear missile into a major city they could wipe out hundreds of thousands of people. If the US gets involved in another regional war it will be the nail in the coffin of the US economy. The tragedy of war aside...........the economic repercussions alone would haunt future Americans for generations to come. But that is exactly why Obama and the NWO would launch America into another war. To topple and destroy our country and usher in a one world government and economy.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 03:04 AM
link   
This is an ongoing dispute. Here is a 2002 BBC posting which sounds like it could apply today:

Russia plays down Iran nuclear deal


Russia says "political factors" will determine if it goes through with plans to expand nuclear co-operation with Iran. "Whether the plans will be realised depends on many factors," a statement from the Russian Atomic Energy Ministry said.



The move is an apparent concession to United States Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham, who said on Thursday that the matter was of the "utmost" concern to the US.



Last week Moscow surprised Washington by announcing a 10-year nuclear co-operation accord with Iran - one of three countries denounced by President George Bush as an "axis of evil".

The US has long opposed Russia's involvement in the construction of a nuclear power plant at Bushehr in southern Iran, and the new accord includes provision for further plants to be built



US officials argue there can be no other reason for a country with Iran's oil resources to want so many nuclear power reactors.


Has US nuclear policy really changed (toward Iran)?


The declaration presents Iran with a clear choice: Only if it opens up its nuclear program to international inspection will it receive assurances it will not be subject to a nuclear first strike.


So Obama is saying open up or be subject to nuclear first strike!

[edit on 15/4/10 by plumranch]



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 03:46 AM
link   
reply to post by plumranch
 


I think Iran is going to turn into another North Korea. The US will do nothing and eventually Iran will develop nuclear weapons like NK. And then the world and the US will play the sanctions game with very little progress ever being made. Instead of drawing a line in the sand and taking care of Iran before the fact like the US should have done with NK a long time ago.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 02:48 AM
link   
reply to post by JanusFIN
 


Will the US consider weaker sanctions toward Iran?

The answer is, of course, yes, because the US has a weak president, Obama.

Will Obama cave in with Russia regarding the START treaty and break off negotiations with Poland for its defense system?

Has Obama abandoned its traditional ally Israel in favor of its Arab neighbors?

Now that Poland is in incredible crisis, loosing its leadership, will Poland's ally, the US be there to counter the Russians?

Will the US use effective measures to counter China in the currency battle, the information theft battle?



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 02:56 AM
link   


Has Obama abandoned its traditional ally Israel in favor of its Arab neighbors?

Traditional ally... only because the presidents were sell out to AIPAC. The people are tired of Israel's BS. Enough is enough.

If you want to support Israel, send them money but don't send taxpayer's money to Israel since a lot of people don't want to give an allowance to war criminals.


And Obama ain't anti- Israel anyway. Call me when they finally stop giving them money and stop giving them top notch weapons and stop blocking UN resolutions against Israel...



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 12:40 PM
link   
AGAIN? I see a pattern here, considering the date of the original post.

GOOOO BAMA, RAH RAH RAH

Leeeeets show 'em what we GOT GOT GOT

They'll just laugh at us, HAH HAH HAH

Cause to them we're a worry!?!???....NOT NOT NOT!

edit on 7-12-2011 by Gridrebel because:



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join