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.

 

The Venezuela Missile Crisis

page: 2
12
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 04:14 PM
link   
This is BS.

Iran's missiles are a joke. Not to mention their range is maximum 1600 km according to Global Security and the distance between Miami and Venezuela is like 1850 KM....

So PLEASE.

And comparing this to the cuban missile crisis... ARE YOU FREAKING SERIOUS?
Open a book about the cold war before saying such stupid things.




posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by RobertAntonWeishaupt
reply to post by harrytuttle
 

Actions have consequences.

That's what I'm talking about - I guess the difference between you and me is that you'd like to be on the receiving end of those consequences (get nuked by Iranian missiles stationed in Venezuela) and I'd rather be the one initiating the Actions (USA shutting down the Iran/Venezuela nukes).

When it comes to nuclear missiles in the hands of irresponsible nations controlled by a military dictator, there is no negotiating. You can warn them not to do it. You can play nice and convince them their future would be better without the hosting the nukes.

But when it comes to the point that they ignore your "negotiations", and actually set up shop with nukes, talk time has ended.

ACTION is required.

And believe you, me: The USA will take action and they know it.

The USA isn't threatened by Mutually Assured Destruction from Venezuela, as was the case during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Venezuela can't respond with nukes if we nuke them first. They won't even know what's coming with those Tomahawks flying in low and fast. By the time our nukes go off, they will have NOTHING left to respond with.

Those are the CONSEQUENCES.
edit on 9-12-2010 by harrytuttle because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by concernedcitizen519
Wow, if true the implications could be immense!
Doesn't this remind you of The Cuban Missile Crisis of '62?


yup




Ok Seriously.


Get a Grip.

No it doesn't remind me of the Cuban Missile crises.


The US and USSR went eyeball to eyeball over Cuba and could have potentially obliterated the planet over it. I'm sorry but if you're afraid of that type of scenario then you have vastly over estimated Iran's abilities.


edit on 9-12-2010 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by concernedcitizen519
 


As I said in the other thread on this topic. It's just to scare the American people into supporting an invasion of Venezuela. The Gov/Corps have been wanting to do this since the start of the decade.


Theres no way the US could attack Venezuela even if they did allow Iran to place those missiles there. Venezuela is a very strong trade partner to many south american countries, meaning that the US would be at odds not only with Venezuela but with the whole south american(but Colombia)....
Have you guys ever heard of UNASUR/UNASUL or USAN(in english)?
Its basically the south american equivalent of the European Union.


The Unasur Constitutive Treaty was signed on May 23, 2008, at the Third Summit of Heads of State, held in Brasília, Brazil.[5] According to the Constitutive Treaty, the Union's headquarters will be located in Quito, Ecuador. The South American Parliament will be located in Cochabamba, Bolivia, while the headquarters of its bank, the Bank of the South are located in Caracas, Venezuela.[6]
The combined population of the 12-member Union as at 1 July 2010 was estimated at 396,391,032.
Defence policy
The South American Defence Council (CDS [16] ) was proposed by Venezuela and Brazil to serve as a mechanism for regional security, promoting military co-operation and regional defence. From the beginning Brazil, Argentina and Chile, the countries that took the leadership of the project, made clear that they did not intend to form a NATO-like alliance, but a cooperative security arrangement, enhancing multilateral military cooperation, promoting confidence and security building measures and fostering defense industry exchange. Colombia initially refused to join the defence council due to the strong military ties it has with the United States through the Plan Colombia. However after reviewing the proposal they decided to join on July 20, 2008.[17][18][19]
Shortly following the signing by Colombia's President, President of Chile Michelle Bachelet appointed a working group to investigate and draft a plan for the new council. Finally, on March 10, 2009, the 12 nation members held, in Chile, the first meeting of the newly formed council.[20]
In mid-2010 UNASUR played a key role in mediating the 2010 Colombia–Venezuela diplomatic crisis. On 1 September 2010, the agency "UnasurHaití" was created to provide U$ 100 million in help to Haiti.[21]



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 04:34 PM
link   
i have a lot of respect for president hugo chaves, a real socialist leader in a real democracy. i do admit that he can make himself look a bit of a clown at times on tv and he has banned a few newspapers etc...(cia backed newspapers and tv stations) but he is a man who will fight for human rights and not a man of greed as you can see by his giving of oil to cuba in return for medical staff for the needy.
lets hope he can avoid the cia's assasins for as long as fidel has.



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by lewman
i do admit that he can make himself look a bit of a clown at times on tv and he has banned a few newspapers etc...(cia backed newspapers and tv stations) but he is a man who will fight for human rights



He closed down something like 32 TV and Radio stations leaving what?
"1" Government controlled media. Can you say Orwellian?

All those TV and Radio stations were all CIA backed.

edit on 9-12-2010 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 04:49 PM
link   
Quite simply, the US fabricates the instillation of Iranian nuke missiles in Venezuela (like the Iraq WMD) convinces the UN, and the American people, and with some consensus launches annihilating attacks on both Iran and Venezuela.

Kill two birds with one stone... so to speak.




posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
[more
mostly US backed, maybe not all cia backed but even so have you seen the news in america, i am guessing you are american so its maybe a silly question, but it is not the same as in western europe and it is no different than in russia it is just played in a different way.
all those pictures of bush in his air force jackets etc... are the same as showing putin shooting a tiger with a dart, except putin really did shoot the tiger and bush dropped out of the airforce.

but in defence or defense of chaves, the most power hungry nation on the planet is against him, what can he do. the press could manipulate the public against him when he is clearly one of the most ethical leaders of a country within the huge mainland of the american contenant for a long time indeed



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 07:27 PM
link   
You people are ignorant if you think this isn't, or can't be, a problem. Just because Iran CURRENTLY doesn't have a big nuke capacity doesn't mean that it won't grow to have one! This may not be a big thing right now, but within a decade (if things keep going the way they're going) this could be a potential game changer and I doubt the US is gonna put up with something this catastrophic in their own hemisphere.

Let's face it, the chances of Iran giving up their nuclear ambitions now are EXTREMELY low. It's only a matter of time before the material gets weaponized, but when it does, it's going to continue to be shared with other partners (Venezuela) and this is highly unstable. Do you think Iran or Venezuela are going to change their attitude towards the West anytime soon? No. The hope for a breakthrough is just hope, the Iranians are too hell-bent on being recognized as the ME Superpower just as the Venezuelans are pushing their own agendas and the US/UN are too big to stand down.

Looks like we're on a crash course.



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 07:28 PM
link   
So far I only seen this one source so I'm going to say "if" true then what doe's Chavez gain if anything - whats the gambit?

The U.S. President has pledged no first use of WMD - what's Chavez to worry about? - Conventional raid? gotta find all of those missiles and destroy all without error or he could carry out any number of scenarios.

Chavez has ardently supported the overthrow of Columbia's government with FARC as his proxy, his purchase of 100 French AMX tanks several years back, along with modern Russian fighter aircraft and more recently something like a million AK rifles suggest he may have extra-territorial aspirations.

If a more blatant or direct role was anticipated in Columbia then the Iranian missiles could stymie a response by the U.S. and other South American Nations.

Think how it would be if Chavez targeted the Panama Canal or threatens another Nations cities as possible retaliation for military action against his forces or assets.

One side of the coin says the Iranians are much further along with nuclear weapons, while other side of the debate believes not. For sake of discussion lets say Iranians are soon to have warhead capability for their missiles, then what?

Is he to join in an "Axis" to contain, prevent or stop U.S. western nations policy dead in its tracks, what if some kind of coordinated effort was in works from Iran, North Korea, Venezuela and China? to create an overwhelming situation that ends positively for those in the Axis at the expense of Western Nations.

Yes something along these lines could be another Cuba at best and genesis for WW-III at worst.

If this is true and if near future warhead availability were in place then I see nothing but major military conflict in a wider sense than just Chavez's backyard.



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Vitchilo
 


Actually I didn't know that Venezuela was that close to the U.S. at all.
That is actually right in the range of Iran's best missiles (around 1250 miles)
I still don't think it's a concern, but I guess that is a little more dangerous.
I didn't even think about Florida, I checked Venezuela's distance from Cali and Texas.
My mental geography was off.



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 07:35 PM
link   
reply to post by harrytuttle
 


Well this is impossible because Iran doesn't have nukes.
2nd



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 07:42 PM
link   
if it is a wikileak then it has an agenda.

The agenda in this case to make Iran
look like the boogey man to justify an
attack on Iran.

I also remember a GW Bush speech
made in the chambers which was
very similar to this one.

"Saddam Hussein is trying to acquire
nuclear material from Africa"

same class, different day
same outcome

know the players
and you can read the map



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 07:50 PM
link   
reply to post by boondock-saint
 


Blah.. that is annoying. Your post is just more annoying anti WL rhetoric. If you would have taken the time to visit the link you would see this isn't from a cable.

Wikileaks doesn't have an agenda. Only people who try to connect their leaks to a possible agenda have an agenda. That agenda being to try to denounce Wikileaks.



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by boondock-saint
if it is a wikileak then it has an agenda.

The agenda in this case to make Iran
look like the boogey man to justify an
attack on Iran.


Man.....

Those two scenarios are getting so OLD and over used.

"Everything" is either an excuse or a False-Flag" to attack Iran. Which many members here at ATS have been predicting for years yet nothing happens EVER AND Everything about wikileaks is a CIA backed ploy.




posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Well if you look at Iraq and how US prepared the invasion you would see similar BS being built against Iran.

For example a stolen laptop which suggested Iraq wanted, or was building nukes, or other WMDs.

For example the heavy sanctions.

US is still trying to find excuses to sanction Iran just like Iraq, and kill over a million babies, then invade and occupy it.

But before all of that happens, there needs to be fear, and all the good feeling towards Iran need to be eradicated



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 08:13 PM
link   
reply to post by oozyism
 


OOZY

IF the US wanted to take Iran out they would have done it 7 or 8 years ago. We would have struck while the getting was good. We have them surrounded everybody likes to point that out.



THE BS as you call it was actually other Gulf states urging the US to strike yet we haven't.

A mouse farts in Israel it's a False-Flag to attack Iran....

pffft.



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by oozyism
 


OOZY

IF the US wanted to take Iran out they would have done it 7 or 8 years ago. We would have struck while the getting was good. We have them surrounded everybody likes to point that out.



THE BS as you call it was actually other Gulf states urging the US to strike yet we haven't.

A mouse farts in Israel it's a False-Flag to attack Iran....

pffft.


Not really, back then US was pre-occupied with Iraq, then after Iraq, got pre-occupied in Afghanistan, and Afghanistan is still continuing to pre-occupy the US military.

Regarding the Gulf states, I kinda accept the fact that it is natural for puppets to have the same wishes as their puppet masters, but if those wishes are in conflict with the puppet masters, then the puppets will be replaced



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by oozyism
Regarding the Gulf states, I kinda accept the fact that it is natural for puppets to have the same wishes as their puppet masters, but if those wishes are in conflict with the puppet masters, then the puppets will be replaced


Everything is a False-Flag
Everything is a CIA plot.
Everybody who is a US Allie is a Puppet

The world according to OOZ



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by oozyism
 


OOZY

IF the US wanted to take Iran out they would have done it 7 or 8 years ago. We would have struck while the getting was good. We have them surrounded everybody likes to point that out.



THE BS as you call it was actually other Gulf states urging the US to strike yet we haven't.

A mouse farts in Israel it's a False-Flag to attack Iran....

pffft.

Although I agree with you that this False-Flag Attack Iran topic is getting kind of old, but it's something that's not off the table. The reason nothing was been done before was because they simply didn't have enough on Iran to do anything, other than some human treatment issues! However things are rapidly changing and the US has been preparing us psychologically for the Iran attack for years now. This could turn into a battle of Biblical proportions depending on the way it plays out.

I still think we're a little bit of ways from an attack, whether from US or Israel, but the time for diplomacy is fading and the warmongers are quietly celebrating in joy as the next war looms.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join