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.

 

Why a war with Iran is necessary should talking fail.

page: 2
32
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 06:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Snoopy1978
A mod not only supporting but openly encouraging "pre-emptive" genocide. Killing innocent children, women, men, old and young, puppies, kittens, etc. All for Israel's "paranoia". Dont forget the oil execs and multinationals drooling at the snout for more obscene profits. War is NOT the answer! Iran is in a far worse spot than Israel as it is surrounded by US/Israeli troops. The US is the only nation to have actually used nuclear weapons in anger against another nation and has secretly provided Israel with loads of them. Who will keep these two proven cold blooded imperialists in check?! Furthermore, US and Israeli politians openly call for an illegal, "tactical" nuclear obliteration of Iran yet the agressors are the supposed victims in this theatre of the absurd. Mod, what are you on for chrissakes?!


It doesn't matter that it is a mod, it worries me that anyone thinks like this.




posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 06:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Snoopy1978
A mod not only supporting but openly encouraging "pre-emptive" genocide. Killing innocent children, women, men, old and young, puppies, kittens, etc. All for Israel's "paranoia". Dont forget the oil execs and multinationals drooling at the snout for more obscene profits. War is NOT the answer! Iran is in a far worse spot than Israel as it is surrounded by US/Israeli troops. The US is the only nation to have actually used nuclear weapons in anger against another nation and has secretly provided Israel with loads of them. Who will keep these two proven cold blooded imperialists in check?! Furthermore, US and Israeli politians openly call for an illegal, "tactical" nuclear obliteration of Iran yet the agressors are the supposed victims in this theatre of the absurd. Mod, what are you on for chrissakes?!


The U.S. never used nuclear weapons in anger. Israel may have created those nukes without the U.S. knowing. If you'll back it was the CIA that uncovered it and reported it. I think a CIA agent or team was either assassinated because of it or was hunted. Seems like something like that happened when Dimona was uncovered.

The U.S. and Israel have NOT openly called for the destruction of Iran. If that would have been the case they would have done it already. We've been trying everything from begging, to calling for meetings with Iran's leaders, debates at the U.N., letters, sanctions, even a pretty please don't do it. We've been doing that since 2003. Iran has only responded by going through with their nuclear program.

Just the other day one of Iran's generals stated they'd wipe out Israel in a matter of days. They know the consequences yet they want to do it anyway. And no its not because we have them surrounded. Nukes or no nukes we'll still go in there and bomb them to the stone age, so they know nukes won't protect them. But yet they keep on pushing. They've been trying to do this since the 70's. This is about warheads and nothing else.

So, if all else fails, we just sit back and let them do what they please, even if it means messing up our way of life, our allies way of life? Rather you like it or not, sometimes war is the only and final solution. Seriously, think about it.



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 06:11 AM
link   
The OP summed up the situation quite well. I don't want another war with anyone, and that goes for Iran. However, given their past track record of taking hostages, terrorist attacks abroad through proxies, publicly advocating death and destruction to other nations, threatening to close international shipping lanes, aiding and abetting insurgencies, and some want to give a nation like that the benefit of a doubt about nuclear weapons? Iran getting a nuclear weapon is the crust of the whole situation. Nobody cares if they want nuclear energy, and other nations have offered to help with that endeavor like Russia has done.

Yet, the Ayatollah's mouthpiece goes around kicking up dirt, rubbing crap in everyone's faces, and mocking other nations and their concerns. Now is that a responsible power? Now, I know people are going to come out of the woodwork and say Israel this and the US that? Go ahead! That is not the crust of the argument, but Iran acquiring nuclear weapons. By acquiring even one weapon it will give Iran a means to blackmail others in the region, and therefore creating unneeded instability in already unstable place.

Not only is the US and Israel concerned about Iran, but members of the international community. This is not the bullying everyone would like it to be by Israel and the US. We got members of the EU, Middle Eastern countries, IAEA, and even Russia and China beginning to voice concern. If this issue can be resolved through diplomacy and negotiations, great! I am all for that alternative.

Iran still has time, but patience only lasts for so long. This little drama has been going on for over a decade, and the international community has been quite fair and equitable about this matter. I am in the camp of not relishing the prospect of fanatic's acquiring the awesome power that is nuclear weapons. Especially a nation in the middle of a region where everyone is at each others' throats.



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 06:13 AM
link   
When have the states EVER been the "aggressor"?

* Saddam attacked Kuwait
* Al Quada attacked NYC
* Hitler attacked everyone
* Japan attacked Pearl Harbor

Keep spreading your fantasies how the US is out to "obliterate innocent children" and wants "genocide"...while religious fanatics are going for the nuclear bomb and OPENLY spread their hate against anything USA, Western, Israel.

Honestly, a pre-emptive attack is ALMOST a better alternative than laying back and letting Iran get the bomb..the thought alone makes me VERY uneasy. If you think that with Iran getting the nuclear bomb the middle-east will finally get peace...you are a naive fool.

USA doesn't want genocide and attack just for the sake to destroy "innocent children" (as you make it sound)...in fact what we want is fascist dictatorship and religious nutfreaks OFF this planet - and Iran's leadership is amongst them.



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 06:16 AM
link   
reply to post by xpert11
 





Iran's Nuclear Program is like the German airlines of the 30's that ended up dropping bombs on people. When Israel has failed to follow a pre-emptive military doctrine they have nearly been wiped out.


While we are on the comparisons of Germany:


The Nazis used hatred of the Jews to unify the German people and create a new German empire. Nothing unites a people more than when they believe they are constantly under attack and fighting a common enemy. The Jews were convenient enemies.


Now replace Nazis with "US", German with "American", and Jews with "Iranians" or "terrorists" and you can see how the current US regime is making you fear Iran. They can't possibly be peaceful! The TV says they aren't!

I hope no one gets me wrong, all I am doing is showing an analogy, I AM NOT SAYING AMERICANS ARE NAZIS.



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 06:21 AM
link   
America is a bigger threat to its self than Iran will ever be , in the last 10 years alone theyve slaughtered innocents in Iraq , Afghanistan, Pakistan , Libya , and now they want to destroy Iran too .....

..... and for what ? because they might have nukes ? in that case , why not invade England / France / Germany / China / or Russia ? , because were all at peace ? or because these countries would give America an actual war ?

If Russia invaded America tommorrow , would you pick up a gun , or cheer for the Russians ? Because thats all the Iraqis done - fought the invaders , same as the Afghans , so saying that these wars are necessary is like saying you wouldn`t be bothered if your country was under invasion.

"Terrorists" dont wear turbans , they wear suits and fly the American flag.



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 06:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jakes51
The OP summed up the situation quite well. I don't want another war with anyone, and that goes for Iran. However, given their past track record of taking hostages, terrorist attacks abroad through proxies, publicly advocating death and destruction to other nations, threatening to close international shipping lanes, aiding and abetting insurgencies, and some want to give a nation like that the benefit of a doubt about nuclear weapons? Iran getting a nuclear weapon is the crust of the whole situation. Nobody cares if they want nuclear energy, and other nations have offered to help with that endeavor like Russia has done.

Yet, the Ayatollah's mouthpiece goes around kicking up dirt, rubbing crap in everyone's faces, and mocking other nations and their concerns. Now is that a responsible power? Now, I know people are going to come out of the woodwork and say Israel this and the US that? Go ahead! That is not the crust of the argument, but Iran acquiring nuclear weapons. By acquiring even one weapon it will give Iran a means to blackmail others in the region, and therefore creating unneeded instability in already unstable place.

Not only is the US and Israel concerned about Iran, but members of the international community. This is not the bullying everyone would like it to be by Israel and the US. We got members of the EU, Middle Eastern countries, IAEA, and even Russia and China beginning to voice concern. If this issue can be resolved through diplomacy and negotiations, great! I am all for that alternative.

Iran still has time, but patience only lasts for so long. This little drama has been going on for over a decade, and the international community has been quite fair and equitable about this matter. I am in the camp of not relishing the prospect of fanatic's acquiring the awesome power that is nuclear weapons. Especially a nation in the middle of a region where everyone is at each others' throats.


Great points. This is what those people who always say, "but Iran hasn't attacked anyone in 200+ years" need to read and realize.

Iran may not have attacked a country in so and so many years but that doesn't matter. What matters is their regime changed in 79 and was founded by Grand Ayatollah Sayyed Ruhollah Musavi Khomeini, a super-religious nutcase who honestly believes they (Iran, Supreme Leaders) can bring about the anti-christ or Mahdi (or whatever they believe). Ahmindejhad is only the 14th most powerful person in Iran. Khomeini set up a supreme counsel that truly governs Iran. Since his death, now Ayatollah Seyed Ali Hoseyni Khāmene’i is running the show along with 12 others that stay behind the scenes. This is the true decision makers of Iran. This is also whom you folks don't hear a lot about and who you should worry about.

Believe me, the last thing on earth these nutcases need are nukes.
edit on 22-1-2012 by J.Son79 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 06:31 AM
link   
The latest IAEA Report . The report is dated 8 November 2011.



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 06:31 AM
link   
nevermind...
edit on 22/1/12 by Expat888 because: nevermind..



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 06:42 AM
link   
reply to post by flexy123
 





When have the states EVER been the "aggressor"?


Countless times they have entered a war illegally. Vietnam is one of the biggest.




* Saddam attacked Kuwait


Right, Kuwait. Not New York. Not Chicago. Kuwait. Why did the US enter that war?

The official reasons – the threat posed to the US and its allies by Saddam Hussein's alleged programs of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and the possibility that he would pass along those arms to al-Qaeda – have long since been discarded by the overwhelming weight of the evidence, or, more precisely, the lack of evidence that such a threat ever existed.

Hmm...no...so what could it be? Could junior have entered office with a plan to invade Iraq? That's what Richard A. Clarke thought. (A couple of paragraphs down). Oh yes, he was the chief counterterrorism adviser on the National Security Council appointed by Clinton, served as under Bush before leaving in 2003.




* Al Quada attacked NYC


The US trained Al Qaeda:

Wouldn't you be pissed if you were left with a bunch of weapons, a big mess, and realized you were being used against the Soviets? If you are going to train people to kill, you don't just abandon them, especially when they are fanatics.




* Hitler attacked everyone


Except the US. I am glad to see, however, that the US propaganda machine has completely read his playbook. /sarcasm.




* Japan attacked Pearl Harbor


Yes, and again, in my opinion (and many others) your Government knew beforehand that the attack was going to happen. Don't just believe the movie. They made so many demands of the Japanese people that they were trying to force their hand to get them to attack because Germany wouldn't declare war on the US.




Honestly, a pre-emptive attack is ALMOST a better alternative than laying back and letting Iran get the bomb..the thought alone makes me VERY uneasy. If you think that with Iran getting the nuclear bomb the middle-east will finally get peace...you are a naive fool.


So, where is the preemptive attack on North Korea? India? Pakistan? South Africa(before they gave it up)? I don't think I am the fool.



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 06:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by argentus
The latest IAEA Report . The report is dated 8 November 2011.


Very dry, but interesting read. Couldn't they have just written, " Absence of proof is still not proof"?



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 07:03 AM
link   
reply to post by seagull
 




I couldn't agree more. A very informative, intellectually written piece. Let's hope for the best



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 07:08 AM
link   
nm
edit on 22-1-2012 by 12voltz because: nm



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 07:11 AM
link   
reply to post by superman2012
 


What they DID write is detailing the facilities whose activities are unknown due to the IAEA not being allowed to inspect,

outstanding issues which give rise to concern
,



Stressing once again its serious concern that Iran continues to defy the requirements and
obligations contained in the relevant IAEA Board of Governors and UN Security Council
Resolutions;


as noted in the IAEA Report of 8 November 2011 and resolution dated 18 November 2011



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 07:30 AM
link   
All parties need to exert pressure on the opposite side. The result is that war seems far more likely than it actually is, though it creates an atmosphere where a single misunderstanding or miscalculation can make the situation very real indeed.

Call me an optimist (I'm not), but I believe that eventually the issue will be resolved with words and not weaponry. It looks as if it is already beginning to swing that way.

To say that war with Iran is an unattractive option (and it is optional) is putting it rather lightly. Amidst the very public fist-shaking, in private all parties sit and ask themselves questions like "is it really worth it?" and in this particular case the answer will almost certainly be "no".



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 08:58 AM
link   
Despite vitriol aimed at me that says the contrary, I most assuredly do not wish for a war with Iran. Infact, I believe I said that in the opening post, at least once. Perhaps even twice. What? You believe Ahmadinejad, and not me? I'm hurt...


Warmongering American... Out to slaughter millions... Yadda, yadda, yadda. How dare a mod have an opinion, yadda, yadda, yadda... Yep, I'm and American, non warmongering brand however... ...and I'm a mod, who is a member first. Too bad for you, huh?

I don't know that Iran has the bomb. If they do now, or in the future, I don't know that they'll use it. I don't know that they won't, either. Nor do any of you, who seem hell bent on condemning anyone who disagrees with you...

What I said in the opening post for those of you who, apparently, are having trouble with comprehension, I said the military option is the option of last resort. Last, as in final...as in the one after the next before last...

Yeah, let's let the Iranians have the bomb... It'll be ok, a country that actively courts terrorist organizations wouldn't let those same organizations have the bomb, would they? Oh, no, not on purpose surely...not the sainted and oppressed Iranians.

I hope, actually it's bordering on praying, that you all are right, and that I'm wrong. I can live with the disappointment, folks...even though I am a warmongering American. I would just as soon the Middle East not become a radioactive wasteland. Shocking sentiment from a warmonger, no?



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 09:03 AM
link   
Stating that Iran would be a threat with nuclear weapons capabilities is admitting that the US and Israel are threats to world peace.

IF Iran did go down the nuclear weapons production route... how would they be any worse than the nations who already use nuclear threats to justify their "power" over others?

I keep using this same word again and again with this topic on Iran.... CONTRADICTION.

A nuclear weapon is a chip on the table, that is all it is. No country to date has fired a nuclear weapon on another nation (except for the one who embraces the war-on-terror funny enough). Sure a nuclear weapon is a threat, they are actually used to guarantee defence by using the threat of "don't mess with us, we have a nuke". It is meerly an excuse for a bargaining chip for a nation to get it's way.

The US and Israel are scared that if Iran did build a nuke, they would no longer be able to bully them with economic sanctions or be able to insert one of their puppet dictators. Effectively not being able to dictate yet another part of the middle east.

And still... all of this rhetoric that Iran is building a nuclear bomb is nothing more than SPECULATION and their is no basis for this claim at all. For those who are so sure Iran is building a nuke and needs to be stopped.... think to the present for one moment and decide whether the true threat is the nations who already posess nuclear weapons, and to this day are bullying other nations into a false sense of democracy on the single basis that they own a nuclear weapon.

This sums it all up;
"Do as we say, but not as we do."

Break that message and you become threatened with the act of invasion and destruction.



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 09:14 AM
link   
reply to post by InsideYourMind
 


Did I say they weren't a threat to world peace? Don't believe that I did... However, Israel has had nukes for the better part of thirty years, and haven't used 'em. They aren't stupid. Paranoid, yes. Stupid, no. The U.S. has used 'em, two of them, in fact. Nagasaki. Hiroshima. Several hundred thousand people died. That they helped end a nearly decade long world war goes beside the point...

That would seem to indicate to me, that the fewer countries with the bomb the better, no? I don't think that Iran actually intends to use them, should they get them...they aren't stupid either. Or suicidal. We hope.

Iran can have the bomb... OK, let's go with that. Who do we, in our magnanimity, allow to build one next? After all, if an increasingly bellicose Iran is good, surely Syria is OK, too? Saudi Arabia? Egypt? How about some of those oh so stable African regimes? Ah, hell, let's everyone have a nuke or two...the world will really be safe then...



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by argentus
reply to post by superman2012
 


What they DID write is detailing the facilities whose activities are unknown due to the IAEA not being allowed to inspect,

outstanding issues which give rise to concern
,



Stressing once again its serious concern that Iran continues to defy the requirements and
obligations contained in the relevant IAEA Board of Governors and UN Security Council
Resolutions;


as noted in the IAEA Report of 8 November 2011 and resolution dated 18 November 2011


Unknown is still not proof. They also DID write about the items that Iran is cooperating with, and are in the process of starting to. They will also be there at the end of January, so let's see what it says there...if the US doesn't go off halfcocked by then.



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 11:01 AM
link   
reply to post by seagull
 

I get what you are trying to say now, but, you are advocating a preemptive strike, without sufficient knowledge! That's like slapping your dog because he might be thinking about peeing on the carpet! You can see how we would jump to the conclusion, right?

Isn't that what Bush did with Iraq? Weren't you as an American outraged by the lies that caused countless of your fellow countrymen and the thousands of innocent Iraqis deaths? If not, then you deserve the flaming.




top topics



 
32
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join