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.

 

Netanyahu: Only US military threats can stop Iran from making nukes

page: 3
15
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 04:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phedreus
jJust a few replies en masse

1. Neither the US or Israel has any intentions of trying to occupy Iran.

2. This is not a conflict that we can avoid. As such we would be better off fighting it at the time of our choosing, and the way of our choosing.


1. Not so sure about this. Iran is prime real estate and controls many of the major chokepoints (over land and through the strait) for gas/oil/water traveling to Asia. Methinks the plan for Iran is the same as it was for Afghanistan and Iran, then Syria, Lebanon, and on to the baby-stans to Pakistan...at which point we face...well nukes.

2. It's most definitely a conflict that can be avoided. The U.S. and Israel are choosing to get involved, or a better way to put it might be someone is choosing that we get involved...and I don't believe it's the U.S. military or president.

reply to post by twitchy
 


Dang, twitchy...did someone PhotoShop those old pics of Bush and Clinton? Eerie similarities. Tradition!

[edit on 7/12/2010 by ~Lucidity]




posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 05:05 AM
link   
reply to post by twitchy
 


Hmm
I wonder how some of Obama's Muslim friends are viewing those images?



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 09:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Wayne60
 


All cool and all but who would be able to threat the US stop making nukes as well?

I really don't get this. US, UK, India, China can have it but Iran and others can't.

Who in the hell set these rules?

Nukes should be prohibited to anyone. With Iran it only becomes a big deal because of the way they are painted, their religious background and because it would give them a voice over the middle east. Something that nor Israel or the USA are interested in listening to.

Nukes are a stupidity, war-mongering is another and both should be banished from this planet doesn't matter from which nation they come.

And even though I do not agree with Iran and the way they conduct things (regime and whatnots). I also don't agree with certain things in China and yet it's certain that they have it.

By the way where are Saddam's nukes?

Isn't this another smoke curtain to justify yet another reasonless war?



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phedreus
Neither the US or Israel has any intentions of trying to occupy Iran. Israel will have to be, and is already, deployed to fight the ground war that will commence in Gaza, the west bank, and along the borders of Lebanon and Syria, but the strike against Iran will be limited in scope, using special forces ground troops and air assets.



Really?

Then explain me why the US took Iraq side and help them with during the Iran x Iraq war to attempt to invade Iran.

Hell Saddam was even granted a honorary citizen of Detroit to then years later after that war was over and unsuccessful be transformed in the Devil sitting on the axis of evil.

Not that I think Ayatollah Khomeini was right, because I don't. But perhaps the US should just refrained from getting involved if there were no interests in that region or Iran to be more exact.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 10:23 AM
link   
This isn't about 'stopping' Iran from manufacturing a nuke .. this is deeper than that .. it is about killing an ideology and way of thinking of one man ..
The type of thinking that is more dangerous than any weapon .. this is why the Zionists have such a big hard-on for Ahmadinejad .. they want to kill him (yes, kill him, not capture) before he can teach the idea of freedom and equal rights to other nations in the Middle East .. today it is one .. tomorrow there will be two ..

Ofcourse wars are not fought for just a single aim .. this will also ensure the plans for world domination are on track for Zionists .. not America .. America is simply a puppet to get the dirty jobs done ...

Also .. it will ensure control of resources and maintain their permanent presence in Iran .. just like in Iraq and Afghanistan .. they never intended to leave and never will ...

Next battlefield ... Pakistan ... keep watching ... I personally think that this is the one that will start a global war ... not Iran ... Iran is small potatoes compared to Pakistan ...



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by legalizeit
 


Agreed this goes much deeper.
Although it goes much further than simply Zionists.
There are also Arabs who are interested in a nuke free Iran as described here.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 03:05 PM
link   
I saw Mr. Netanyahu on one of the Sunday morning news shows yesterday. He was very to the point. He of course did not reveal everything he and Obama discussed, but he said Obama "will put all options on the table" concerning Iran. He seemed poised and in control during the interview (in my opinion, that is) and for a political person, answered the questions without a lot of "beating around the bush". He seems like a good person??? He stated he does not have a problem with humanitarian supplies going to the west bank, BUT not weapons. Like him or not, he was quite impressive during the interview. I think it was Fox News Sunday that he was on.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Wayne60
 


Did any of them blog their thoughts? We should check that out. Seriously, though, a man of his stature probably has friends of every persuasion, and chances are the PR handlers find equal time for all photo ops. Pretty much every president and world leader has done this kind of stuff.







[edit on 7/12/2010 by ~Lucidity]



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by legalizeit
 

Pretty powerful stuff there. I find myself thinking along the same lines. Many of the leaders of the Middle East have some of the same ideas. His ideas are probably good and powerful themselves, but sometimes I wonder if the words he chooses to convey the message distract from the message or in the end give it more power to those who understand what he's really saying. Any thoughts?



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join