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.

 

NEWS: Iran Rejects Restraint on Nuclear Program

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 13 2004 @ 04:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by HeirToBokassa

There is no country currently owning nuclear weapons that would be as much a risk to further proliferation as Iran would be if it went nuclear, barring perhaps Pakistan (which should be disarmed, and possibly already has been). China exhibited this behaviour in the 80s but it is perceived that they too realize that proliferation is very much against their interests.


Are you forgetting about North Korea? Not only do they have at least 2 nuclear bombs they are building long range ICBM's that could deliver them to much of the Cities in the U.S.A. and their leader Kim Jong Ill is not a sane man. The page in the following link is an interesting discussion about North Korea if you have time read through the whole thread. Lots of good information and opinions there.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Gazz




posted on Jun, 13 2004 @ 05:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by feindflug
because iran is a muslim country and would probably kill every "infidel" if they had power


seriously, look at all the other islamic "nations", they shouldnt be trusted t handle such power.


out, infidel.


As opposed to the christian america, expanding its bloody empire through war


Christians and Muslims are as bad as eachother when it comes to violence and war. Let us not forget the crusades people!



posted on Jun, 13 2004 @ 06:51 AM
link   
There is one major difference between Iran and the so called "Nuclear Club" with the exception of Pakistan all of these countries have stable governments that are not under constant pressure from fanatics that would like nothing better then the ability to have a nuclear weapon. The world wants to stop North Korea for the same reason; we don't need to allow a lunatic the ability to nuke someone or something. Besides that Iran has signed a non-perforation treaty yet feels its ok to violate it, it seems to me the same people that scream the loudest for the USA and others to disarm cheer on countries like Iran in their pursuit of weapons in some form of twisted logic that two wrongs will make a right.



posted on Jun, 13 2004 @ 07:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Waffen
Besides that Iran has signed a non-perforation treaty yet feels its ok to violate it,


How many treaties has the US signed, but have decided not to follow due to intrests of the US? Kyoto accord is one of them off hand and there have been several more. Bad example to use......


df1

posted on Jun, 13 2004 @ 07:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Waffen
we don't need to allow a lunatic the ability to nuke someone or something.


We already have a lunatic with the ability to nuke someone, george bush. And this lunatic has control over thousands upon thousands of WMDs and rules a country that has an insatiable lust for oil. This is a lethal combination. Iran and N. Korea need WMDs inorder to have any measure of security as has and is being demonstrated in Iraq. The US has no moral high ground in determining which country should have WMDs and which should not.

THE TENTH COMMANDMENT
"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbours goods."



posted on Jun, 13 2004 @ 08:14 AM
link   
I say let them have as many nukes as they wish, Hell lets even sell them ours. We could put that money into some sort of star wars defense program that would make all their new toys obsolete.

We wont have to bitch about the mid east having nuclear capabilities and they cant bitch about us having a star wars system. Either we dont tell them about it or rub their face in it. Good luck making your own!



posted on Jun, 13 2004 @ 08:49 AM
link   
i think USA has a bad case of "do as i say dont do as i do"
of course this kind of approach only makes you more enemies, you are not treating others as equals, do you think that you will force others into submission?

HA-HA-HA

i rather b dead than a f$%& slave, and i know im not the only one.



posted on Jun, 13 2004 @ 10:37 PM
link   
I think the bottom line is that the world is just going to have to deal with and accept a Nuclear Iran.



seekerof

[edit on 13-6-2004 by Seekerof]



posted on Jun, 14 2004 @ 12:34 AM
link   
if that is the case the world will be a completely different place in 10 years. then I want everyone that has taken the side of Iran to come back & logically explain how it was reasonable for Iran to nuke their neighbors. Iran is a very devious & power hungry nation. they make the US look like Mr Rogers.



posted on Jun, 14 2004 @ 12:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Waffen Besides that Iran has signed a non-perforation treaty yet feels its ok to violate it


Isn't the US doing the same?

ArmsControl.org:
The administrations fiscal year 2005 budget proposes $27 million for ongoing research to modify existing types of high-yield nuclear weapons to destroy deeply buried and hardened targets (the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator). It seeks another $9 million for unspecified research on advanced concepts, including new types of low-yield nuclear bombs...

...The proposed Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator is far larger, with a yield likely more than 100 kilotons. A 1962 nuclear test blast of the same size, detonated 635 feet below the surface, ejected 12 million tons of earth and formed a crater 320 feet deep and 1,280 feet wide.



posted on Jun, 14 2004 @ 01:49 AM
link   
Seeleroff and other members,

The world is not going to accept a Nuclear Iran, without them having nuclear weapons they have already threatened to use missiles against US targets and other places. The nuclear bombs that were dropped in Hiroshima and Nagasaki are nothing in comparison to what any nation can build now. I do agree that we shouldn't have used them, but it happened, there isn't much we can do about that. The US now will not use an atomic weapon as easily as before, and if I am right I think we are still under the agreement Clinton signed of not using nuclear weapons in preemtive strikes. I forgot the name of it...but Clinton made us absorb a nuclear attack and if we are still alive then attack back...

Now, someone said something about the crusades.... I don't like to go over this as I belive both sides were totally wrong, but the first people to start the crusades were Muslims in the 6th century. The newly converted Muslims wanted to bring Islam to the world by the sword and they conquered Spain, Italy, and France as well as other places for about 600 years or so. Then the Christian crusades started to repel back the Muslims and to react against the treatment that the Christian pilgrims were subjected to in Jerusalem. The treatment that Christians have suffered in radical Islamic cities in recent times is/was the same as they suffered in the Holy City in ancient times. The response of Chirstianity was not exactly exemplary, but how do you react to someone that is trying to either destroy you or subjugate you to their religion?

" There was already a history of tension between the Christian world and the Muslim world going centuries back in time. Until now it had been fought mainly in Spain and Sicily, but with the change of rulers over Jerusalem in 1070, the treatment of pilgrims to the holy city became so bad that Europe reacted. Still it took a couple of decades before the reaction came - the crusades. "

Excerpted from.
lexicorient.com...://i-cias.com/e.o/crusades_05.htm

I think both religions have done their evil acts in the past, but now what is happening is that it seems many Muslims want the old ways of Islam, and to try once more to bring the world under the rule of Islam. Right now there are three types of Muslims, there are true moderates, which are good people and which radicals call bad Muslims and have killed because they do not follow the radical side of Islam.

There are radicals disguised as moderates, who know that the world has changed and they can't go to war with the west openly because they will lose so they try other ways, as in trying to make riots in the US and making demonstrations against the west. We see these sometimes making speeches in Universities in the US and other countries. And there are radical Islamists who don't care wether they lose as long as they try to kill as many infidels as they can and try to bring the world under Islam once more.

The US cannot live by example because if we get rid of every nuclear weapon we have it will be an invitation for other countries to attack us and no other country will get rid of their nukes.

If Iran ever gets nucler weapons they will use them once they have enough against Israel, while Israel have not used theirs and really have them just as a deterrent.

[edit on 14-6-2004 by Muaddib]



posted on Jun, 14 2004 @ 01:55 AM
link   
Iran could not be trusted with nuclear weapons if you examine their track record with being Political stable, based on there record I wouldnt let then have coconuts to throw in case of war let alone nuclear weapons. For the good of the world something might have to be done to bring them to heel and stop the madness.



posted on Jun, 14 2004 @ 02:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by UM_Gazz
Are you forgetting about North Korea? Not only do they have at least 2 nuclear bombs they are building long range ICBM's that could deliver them to much of the Cities in the U.S.A. and their leader Kim Jong Ill is not a sane man.


No, I am not forgetting North Korea. You quoted a statement I made about nuclear proliferation. North Korea is known to have proliferated missile technology, not nuclear technology (it was rather the recipient of nuclear proliferation by other countries). The Chinese PLA can be crazy too and North Korea's leadership, which poses as insane in order to intimidate other countries, would not dare to cross the nuclear threshold. If the North Koreans were so insane, why would they time their nuclear revelations to be simultaneous to the Iraq war? That is a premeditated act, not an act of madness.



posted on Jun, 15 2004 @ 01:29 AM
link   
Iran has made no attempt to develop a delivery system for a nuke. That would mean our greatest fear of their nukes/nuke would be if we were invading them. Which brings me to this.... we have no business there in the first place.



posted on Jun, 15 2004 @ 02:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Indy
Iran has made no attempt to develop a delivery system for a nuke. That would mean our greatest fear of their nukes/nuke would be if we were invading them. Which brings me to this.... we have no business there in the first place.


Iran missile test alarms Israel

Shahab-3 / Zelzal-3

But it's not like they would use those for nukes or anything! They're investing in this technology for launching satellites, for conventional warheads in a defensive war, and that's it. Nothing to see here.



posted on Jun, 15 2004 @ 02:08 AM
link   
I stand corrected. LOL. But then again this would be Israels problem. Not ours. And frankly we should be as concerned about their weapons program as they are just as likely to use them. Israel has a history of NOT showing restraint. Sorry but when you are surrounded by nuclear neighbors it is fooling to not have your own. Look at their neighbors. Russia, India, Pakistan, Israel. I think Turkey has them too. If everyone around you was armed to the max wouldn't you want to be?

Also do we know whether this missle is able to carry a nuclear warhead?



posted on Jun, 15 2004 @ 06:18 AM
link   
Must be just me, But I am sick of USA dictating to the rest of the world, what gives them the right to be high and mighty, Most of the weaponry came from states in first place. America speaks and shall obey yeah right. This is not pointed towards the American people btw but Bush and the USA government in general.


df1

posted on Jun, 15 2004 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
If Iran ever gets nucler weapons they will use them once they have enough against Israel, while Israel have not used theirs and really have them just as a deterrent.


The friends of the US have a nuclear deterrent, while its enemies have WMDs. This message is brought to you by Orwellian doublespeak, the language of the future.
.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join