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.


Why a war with Iran is necessary should talking fail.

page: 10
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 01:46 PM
Everybody get it through their thick skulls. War with Iran is 110% solely for Israel's interests. Those Americans that are still too stupid too open their eyes need to realize this.

Israel HAS over 200 hundred nukes and yet stupid Americans allow themselves to be scared in to supporting Israel and America in bombing a country that which has NONE!! Let me repeat that, NONE!!!!

We bomb "terrorists" in Pakistan who have nuclear weapons.

To all those troops and their families. Remember you are dying for Israel, NOT America. America is 7,200 miles from Iran. Can you do math??

posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 01:47 PM
reply to post by disiswhoitb

well said friend

posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 01:56 PM
I don't think a war would be necessary. The people are already suffering in Iran due to the embargoes on the country. Items like milk, meat and cheese are up 50%. There is only so much of this a country can take before the people demand a change. Iran will eventually be forced to make some concessions.

Should Iran be allowed nuclear weapons? No. No weapon should be allowed nukes. Just because some countries do have them, doesn't mean giving more countries nukes will fix the problem.

posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 01:57 PM
yeah im gonna have to disagree on a few things- namely, that Iran is building a bomb. Do we have pictures? pictures or it didn't happen?

we have our intelligence saying what exactly? that they're building a bomb.

I grant you, it's possible and likely that they are- but who is giving us this information? hmmm.. the same folks who said Iraq had WMDs...

you've also gotta remember who is holding Iran's LEASH... think for a minute- yeah you got it.. probably Russia. If nothing else, a nuclear armed Iran may shift the balance of power in the region

think about it- if THE largest/strongest military was parked on the western AND eastern borders of your country simultaneously.. wouldn't you want a deterrent? I sure would. Put yourself in their shoes.

I'm not saying I like Iran, or that Israel is unjustified in feeling threatened.. but I think a few deep breaths are in order.

Furthermore, if I can pivot to North Korea now... with all their sabre rattling and what not, they haven't even managed to get a *missile* off the ground.

The first step is building a bomb.. that's a BIIIG step folks.

second step is developing a payload system, I.E. rockets that work... that's another BIIIIG step.

For all of their crazy talk, I think on one hand Iran is dealing with a lot of internal, unpublished strife- and on the other, central leadership is extremely worried about foreign troops a stone's throw from major sources of revenue and repression for the top tier.

On another note- I'm very glad that you brought this up, I think it's a great discussion/debate starter.


posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 02:34 PM
They have no delivery system...therefore they can only end up nuking their neighbors.

If they do that, then a couple things happen
1) You don't have America, World Police Dept. demanding war, you have the entire freaking world rushing over there...hell, America might even be able to sit this one out and let the united world do what they do

2) You have a listing monument of crazy talk dictators + nuke = bad. The concept from The Watchmen (must make a demonstration for the people to understand) does apply here sadly. If Iran decides to nuke (fully Iran, not false flag stuff, but their proper response), then not only will that eliminate the iran threat (in a rather interesting glowy end), but anyone whom starts down the same path will not have a couple countrys scorning...but rather a united world ready to pound the hell out of them should they cross that line

3) Since there is no threat to our nation, we simply can not do anything to them. It is -not- a matter of national security, however, smacking more and more nations far from us that are no threat to our homeland may in fact be.

4) We already set up a horrible precedence of pre-emptive striking. We need to destroy that mindset. We are not Japan circa 1940s. We seen what happens

5) We are broke. Sorry, but anyone whom is for this line of thinking should be required to sell their home in order to build a rather small bomb for the military, or be indebted to a life of state servitude to pay for their desires of a war we cannot afford. Or...were you hopeing your grandkid could pay for it so you would have cool stuff to watch on fox news today.

6) Name 1 war America has absolutely and undeniably won since WW2. We win tons of battles, but we haven't won a war in 70 years. We suck at it. Cold war was a nato effort. iraq..we won nothing, we simply had an extravagant assassination, minor police skirmishes are just that (libya was a un action to take sides on someone elses civil war and lob some bombs)...

Hopefully those 6 points will not fall on deaf ears. There may be times in history where war is necessary..this is most definitely not one of those times.

posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 02:40 PM

Originally posted by SaturnFX
They have no delivery system...therefore they can only end up nuking their neighbors.

Nukes... True, they may possibly (unconfirmed) be able to strike some European locations.

They do have millions of potential delivery systems all over the globe for other potential 'weapons'

posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 02:43 PM
reply to post by Dystopiaphiliac

War does not make one great..Master Yoda..

posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 02:48 PM

Originally posted by Fractured.Facade
They do have millions of potential delivery systems all over the globe for other potential 'weapons'

The bigger threat is not some crazy middle eastern dictator with a couple nukes
its the eastern European guy in an airport with a cough as the delivery system...

for some reason, we are still thinking this is 1953 and the a-bomb is the threat..not even close. a small unassuming biotech firm paid for by some fanatics is a far scarier thing than 20 uranium enriching plants.

posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 02:56 PM
reply to post by seagull

Lol, nice joke Seagull. I hope to read more of your work.

posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 03:13 PM
reply to post by SaturnFX

When America first created the bomb we didn't have delivery systems. Hell, we had to create them! Now, lots of countries have them and the instructions to create them. This shouldn't be hard for Iran to acquire.

1.) But wouldn't it be better for the "United World" to stop it before it happens by shutting down their means to acquire and manufacture nuclear weapons rather through diplomacy, and if that fails, then the only option left is force. Which is what is going on right now. Maybe not a United World, but the U.S. this time will have a stronger coalition then with Iraq 2.0.

If diplomacy fails, then force will have to be the other option. Why? Then these peaceful measures we're using will never work on any country. So if we do nothing, the world will see it. They will see America as tooting their horn, getting angry, begging, throwing some sanctions, then siting back and letting whatever happens. Okay, in parenting, what does that do to the bad teenager? Basically tells them to ride out the storm then their free to do whatever.

3.) It's not that Iran is just a threat to our nation, as in our land in the west. They are a threat to our allies and our interests. Those interests just so happen to be the most important. We simply can't risk that. That's why we're not mounting a full on invasion, but rather a strike to shutdown any nuclear facilities. Think of it as a flu shot to stop the flu before it infects you. You know it's coming, better to be ready.

The build of troops in the region (Israel, Afghan, etc) is not a sign of an Iranian land war. It's a readiness measure. Iran has stated that if we strike their facilities they will unleash hell on all our interests in the area. So if that happens, then we have to be ready to protect those interests by any means necessary. We just want to stop the nuke program, we do not want to start a full on invasion of the country.

4.) Sometimes pre-emptive measures are necessary. We have never abused it. Only used it when we knew it would be necessary. This is will be a pre-emptive measure to stop the Iran from causing much larger problems in the future. They have done fine for a long time without nuclear energy or weapons and will continue to do so. Just think, if they simply stop the nuke program we'll go away. Life will go on as it has. They do just fine as they are. Why pursue this then? I'm telling you, this program is for weapons, not energy.

5.) We're not going to start a massive war, only take out their facilities if diplomacy fails. I promise you, we're not doing as bad as you think.

6.) We haven't had a war since WWII. We've had regional conflicts. Vietnam was not a conventional war. Iraq 1.0 was, and it was squashed in 96 hours. Iraq 2.0 was a policing venture due to regime change a prevention of civil war. We were there to stabilize the country. That was NOT a war. Afghanistan, we went in to clear out the taliban, once again, not a real military. We have not had a real war since then. You can't compare those past conflicts to WWII. I promise you, we don't suck at war, and if we were engaged in a "real war" you'd be surprised of our capabilities. I'm talking military vs military.

A lot of people compare these wars or conflicts as if they were boxing matches. It's not that way with war. There are many other factors involved, even as with the reason's we are over in said country to begin with. Sometimes its not as simple as "we weren't attacked so we shouldn't be over there", or "we're just being bullies". No, it's nothing to do with that. There's many aspects to these conflicts that a lot of people just simply don't understand. It's not as simple as two people entering a ring and one comes out winner. War and/or conflicts are far more complicated then you'd ever imagine. We're not a war beast like people think.

We helped Libya because of the interest we had in Libya and couldn't risk a country being destabilized that had such large responsibilities to other nations. Libya was obligated to the ways other countries run. The world couldn't simply afford Libya to be destabilized. We chose to help the rebels because we felt like they would run the country better than a dictator. The world is trying to move away from dictators. Lets see Libya in 20 more years before we judge, then discuss if our decision was right. America does things for results in 20-30 years, because we know nothing shows immediately, it's immpossible and when people don't see positive results they slander America for what we do. But when that times comes and the country is doing well, 20 years later, everyone forgets what got them there. Japan for example.

posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 03:44 PM

Yeah that's a great endlösung kind of way at looking at things.
This isn't why my dad died for in WWII.

I am no fan of any nuc-country but if we get to have nukes why not them?
If we are really that scared of what they will do with their nukes lets all get rid of them.

posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 03:51 PM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 03:55 PM

Originally posted by WellMaybe2007
yeah im gonna have to disagree on a few things- namely, that Iran is building a bomb. Do we have pictures? pictures or it didn't happen?

we have our intelligence saying what exactly? that they're building a bomb.

I grant you, it's possible and likely that they are- but who is giving us this information? hmmm.. the same folks who said Iraq had WMDs...
revenue and repression for the top tier.

Yes, the same folks are at it again. But it is unfair to blame the intelligence agencies. If you do this, you misplace most of the blame.


C.I.A.-director George “slam dunk” Tenet supported the claims of Iraqi WMDs and Saddam's alleged links to terrorism. But many of his intelligence analysts had a different opinion.

In 2002/2003 the leading warmongers were not members of the C.I.A., NSA or of the other intelligence agencies. It were the Neocons.

The Neocons are the modern fascists of the USA. They are supremacists, jingoists, warmongers and liars. In short, they are born sociopaths. The only good thing about them is, that they make fine reverse truthtellers. Their analysis and predictions are nearly always completely wrong. So if you believe the opposite from what these men proclaim, you will usually be right in the long run.

Even before Bush got elected, the Neocons were lobbying for war against Iraq. Under Bush they occupied many high-ranking positions. They abused their positions to bypass the normal flow of intelligence. Under Doug Feith they even created a special office, called the Office of Special Plans.. This office collected and packaged dubious and fraudulent intelligence. This intelligence was used by journalists as talking points, which helped to ignite jingoism and develop support for a war against Iraq. Powell used this fraudulent intelligence in his infamous UN speech.

Nearly all Neocons are fervent Zionists. Some are journalists, others are lobbyists for the arms industry and the rest are members of various think tanks or occupy high ranking administrative positions. Leading Neocons Douglas Feith, Richard Perle, and David Wurmser even worked for the Netanyahu-administration. Here they developed policy plans for the benefit of Greater Israel. When they were in high-ranking positions of the Bush administration, they abused their positions to implement those plans.


Again the Neocons are rallying their henchmen. This time Iran is the target. While after 9/11 most intelligence analysts with a different opinion remained silent. This time much more members of the intelligence community have spoken out against this new drive for war.

Example former C.I.A. station chief Philip Giraldi

Also all 16 US intelligence agencies which were responsible for the last two N.I.E.s (National Intelligence Estimates) about Irans Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities were unable to find any evidence, which could confirm an active Iranian nuclear weapons program.

National Intelligence Estimates (NIEs) are United States federal government documents that are the authoritative assessment of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) on intelligence related to a particular national security issue. NIEs are produced by the National Intelligence Council and express the coordinated judgments of the United States Intelligence Community, the group of 16 U.S. intelligence agencies. NIEs are classified documents prepared for policymakers.

Latest press release N.I.E. Irans Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities

Investigative Seymour Hersh has used his various intelligence-connections and produced some articles about the misperceptions which dominate our view on Iran's nuclear program.

Here is a good interview with him about the N.I.E.s and the missing evidence [20 min].
edit on 23-1-2012 by Drunkenshrew because: typo

posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 05:18 PM
reply to post by Deetermined

Because they have a history of lying??!!

Can you prove they are trying to build a bomb? They even announced they were going to enrich uranium when they did it and was eager to show off the first rod they produced. It seems like if they are trying to keep this stuff secret they aren't doing a good job of it.

When was the last time Israel said that Iran needed to be "blotted out" of the Jewish world? They haven't. However, Ahmadinejad has said just that about Israel. They consider Israel to be in the heart of the Muslim world and there won't be any peace until they're removed.

He never said Israel should be blotted out that has been debunked many times. Mecca is the heart of the Muslim world and that's in Saudi Arabia. Although the dome of rock is in Jerusalem but I don't understand how you think Israel is the heart of the Muslim world.

Except Muslims aren't taught just to pray about it. They're taught to "prepare the way" for it. If you have any questions about that, look up the conference on "Mahdism Doctrine" that takes place every year and see what they teach at this conference.

Christians and Jews are also preparing for the end of days. So again why is Islam forbidden to teach about the end of days? Is it because they talk about war with Israel?

It's not just America. You've got Iran supporting terrorists in Iraq right now to remove the current Sunni members of government. They want a Shia government in Iraq.

And what does this tell us? We never should have stuck our noses in Iraq in the first place. Regan was right ME politics is just way to complicated.

Unfortunately, there's too much international crime to bring them all to court. It doesn't mean that they haven't been proven to be a gangster.

How so by guilt of association?

posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 05:20 AM
maybe we can sell your favorite national park to the arabs to fund this war???

give the chinese the rights to our roadway system and we can all throw our change at the toll booths...

heck, maybe we can save a few bucks by sending the troops over there and then turning around and claiming we have no money to pay them...

or is there money trees growing outside the white house that obama can go and pluck hundred dollar bills from???
edit on 24-1-2012 by dawnstar because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 05:42 AM

Originally posted by buster2010

[/He never said Israel should be blotted out that has been debunked many times. Mecca is the heart of the Muslim world and that's in Saudi Arabia. Although the dome of rock is in Jerusalem but I don't understand how you think Israel is the heart of the Muslim world.

Yes, there are many different words Ahmadinejad has used to prove his intent, not just "map" or "blot". Plus the statements of others who feel the same way. He considers Israel to be in the "heart" of the Muslim world because they sit smack in the middle of other Muslim countries, not Jewish ones.

Ahmadinejad stressed "Our dear Imam [Khomeini] ordered that the occupying regime in Jerusalem be wiped off the face of the earth. This was a very wise statement. The issue of Palestine is not one which we could compromise on... I warn the heads of all nations of the Islamic world to beware of this trap. If some, who are under pressure by the dominating powers, follow a misguided policy or are naive, or selfish or have earthly desires, recognize this regime (Israel), they should know that they would be burnt in the fire of the Islamic Ummah (Nation) and will bear an eternal stigma on their foreheads." He further expressed his firm belief that the new wave of confrontations generated in Palestine and the growing turmoil in the Islamic world would in no time wipe Israel away.

On 26 October 2005 Islamic Revolutionary Guards spokesman Seyyed Massoud Jazayeri said "If this cancer (Israel) is not removed from the Islamic world, Muslims will sustain immense harm... This wound was opened more than half a century ago and has still not been healed, because in the Islamic world, some leaders and regimes, which have not been democratically elected by their own people, continue to rule, with the help of Western imperialism. A world without Zionism, and the obliteration of Israel from the face of the earth, is not only the objective of Iran, but of the whole Muslim world."

Christians and Jews are also preparing for the end of days. So again why is Islam forbidden to teach about the end of days? Is it because they talk about war with Israel?

Go back and read my statement again. There's a difference between preparing for the end of the world and "preparing the way" for it. Once again, I'll direct you to "The Mahdi Doctrine" conference.

And what does this tell us? We never should have stuck our noses in Iraq in the first place. Regan was right ME politics is just way to complicated.

It is complicated, but regardless of the U.S. presence or not, the Sunnis and the Shiites still would have been battling each other over in Iraq just like in the Iran/Iraq war. It never would have ended. Actually, it may never end, because they're back at it again. If there's one thing we should learn, it's that there will never be peace in the Middle East, but the harsh statements made by Ahmadinejad and others should be enough to prove to anyone that we shouldn't allow chemical weapons in their hands.

edit on 24-1-2012 by Deetermined because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 06:01 AM
I just want to add, what most of you don't understand is that Iran, as well as other Muslims, believe that ALL of Israel is Palestine. They intend to fight to take the land back and have said so. Ahmadinejad is against negotiations and has condemned the Palestinian Authority for trying to use the U.N. to create a Palestinian state. Maybe you should do a search on "Islamic Resistance". It's all about resistance (war), not negotiating. This is what the Qu'ran has taught them. And yes, an Iranian poster here on ATS has confirmed that for me.

So, if ALL of Israel is Palestine, and they intend to fight to take back ALL of the land for the Muslims, where does that leave Israel and the Jews that reside there? Do you think they're going to move and become refugees in many nations again? Do you think the U.S. should allow the Middle East to do that? The only country that's been very verbal about this plan is Iran. If other Muslim countries feel that ALL of the land of Israel needs to be taken back for the Muslims, they haven't been so obvious about it. This is why Iran is a special needs child when it comes to nuclear enrichment.

posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 06:11 AM
reply to post by Pr0t0

I wouldn't rule out North Korea nuking its Southern neighbour. By your logic German rearmament in the 30's was only ever going to be for peaceful purposes. Nuclear deterrent relies on the political leaders in question willingness to use nukes. It also has a narrow focus because it ignores the threat of conventional forces .

posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 07:52 AM

Originally posted by Drunkenshrew

Originally posted by hmdphantom
reply to post by seagull

Please understand this, my friends... I don't want an armed conflict with Iran. But our options are shrinking daily..

I've never seen friend plan to kill each other unless there is hypocrisy behind it.

Perhaps this kind of thinking is normal for a self-designated “reformed hawk”, who sees no irony in calling a preemptive war a necessity.

It is astonishing. Those warmongers are lied into one war after the other. Usually those lies are exposed, before the war has even started. When they later find out, what the truth really is, they become angry. They walk around infuriated and proclaim: “No one could have known this beforehand!”, and “How could they lie to us!”

Nonetheless they obediently fall for the next scam. They don't investigate phony allegations. Instead they prefer to trust their gut-feeling and their leaders. To convince themselves, they even make up their own facts. Like: "Iran is increasingly seeking to acquire WMDs."

The sense of superiority and thinking to be smart , always lead people to repeat their faults and they never correct their behavior.

The thing I keep saying to myself is "I am not smarter".

But these people say to themselves " you will never know ".

posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 07:55 AM
reply to post by Drunkenshrew

The only thing I see on this thread is people continuing following their agendas :

Zionists don't want another powerful nation in the region.

And Zionisms supporters don't want it ,too.

new topics

top topics

<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in