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: 6
32
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by seagull
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...


The point is, no nation who has a nuclear bomb can provoke, sabotage, or threat a nation which POSSIBLY may produce a nuclear weapon. If the US and Israel (and even the UK) wish to dispose of Iran's efforts at nuclear power. They should remove their own nuclear power plants and dispose of every single nuclear weapon/device that they own... then they can go along with the "we want peace" -- with a meaning, and the lack of hypocrisy in the form of several hundred nukes.

The reality is, this will never happen, as a nuclear bomb is nothing more than a bargaining chip.

And this;

Nagasaki. Hiroshima. Several hundred thousand people died. That they helped end a nearly decade long world war goes beside the point...

I'm sorry but how did that help end the war? People from the US always seem to state this, but it is far from fact and i only ever hear americans say it.. why is that?




posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 10:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Drunkenshrew
 


Thank you for the link..taking a listen now..I'll post more after I hear the podcast..Cheers Coco

Well..I'm not sure what to say to that..except for more of what I said earlier "we just don't know who to trust"

Here we have all these different agencies making claims and in the end not producing the laptop documents for further investigation. Which leaves me very suspicious about these so called documents and their authenticity.


The German source said he did not know whether the documents were authentic or not. However, CIA analysts, and European and IAEA officials who were given access to the laptop documents in 2005 were very skeptical about their authenticity.

The Guardian's Julian Borger last February quoted an IAEA official as saying there is "doubt over the provenance of the computer."
antiwar.com...

The article goes on to say that:


Scott Ritter, the former US military intelligence officer who was chief United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991 to 1998, noted in an interview that the CIA has the capability test the authenticity of laptop documents through forensic tests that would reveal when different versions of different documents were created.

The fact that the agency could not rule out the possibility of fabrication, according to Ritter, indicates that it had either chosen not to do such tests or that the tests had revealed fraud.


Thanks for directing me to this article..it was really interesting..and I recommend it to the other posters for their perusal.

More about the Author:


Gareth Porter is an independent historian and journalist. He is the author of Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam. His articles appear on Counterpunch, Huffington Post, Inter Press Service News Agency and Antiwar.com.

edit on 23-1-2012 by itscocobaby because: edit to add



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 12:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by InsideYourMind

Originally posted by seagull
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...


The point is, no nation who has a nuclear bomb can provoke, sabotage, or threat a nation which POSSIBLY may produce a nuclear weapon. If the US and Israel (and even the UK) wish to dispose of Iran's efforts at nuclear power. They should remove their own nuclear power plants and dispose of every single nuclear weapon/device that they own... then they can go along with the "we want peace" -- with a meaning, and the lack of hypocrisy in the form of several hundred nukes.

The reality is, this will never happen, as a nuclear bomb is nothing more than a bargaining chip.

And this;

Nagasaki. Hiroshima. Several hundred thousand people died. That they helped end a nearly decade long world war goes beside the point...

I'm sorry but how did that help end the war? People from the US always seem to state this, but it is far from fact and i only ever hear americans say it.. why is that?


Actually, the U.S. cannot go and lay down its arms just because a nation wants to become a nuclear power. We have many nations that depend on us. Those nations support other nations. It's one big cycle that keeps the world turning. A lot of these nations don't have the means to protect themselves. America does, and America does protect them because of her arms. Iran on the other hand has no such responsibility and has no use for nuclear warheads. The U.S. needs to have a powerful weapon to keep countries like this in check from upsetting the current balance of the world. You have no clue the damage this could cause. This is why it's okay for America.

Say what you want about America. Call us killers, heartless, thieves, War-Orcs, whatever, but one thing you'll never be able to call us is "selfish". We stand up for the little guy and even help the big guys in a time of need. No matter the crisis, we are there. We have a huge responsibility to uphold and need those arms. No other country on this planet has the responsibilities we do. Iran has no such responsibility. This is why we are allowed arms, not only that, but it's also our invention. But the main reason is to moderate the globe and make sure everything runs afloat.

Now, your wondering about WWII and Japan? That's a real easy one. What would have been better? 190,000 lives or 5 million lives? A ground invasion would have cost 5million + lives if we would have invaded Japan. We begged Japan to surrender, they said NO. Printed the Potsdam declaration in their papers, laughed, and said NO SURRENDER. We told them in the Potsdam Declaration that they would be decimated and utterly destroyed if they didn't surrender. We even gave them 13 days after that before the 1st bomb fell. Then silence from Japan. Three days later, still nothing. Then the 2nd bomb drops. Then Japan surrenders.

So what do we have here. Japan, a country that was hell bent on destroying us. We tried to get them to surrender they said, "No". The only other options was the Nukes, or ground invasion. The ground invasion would cost millions of lives. The two bombs did not, but did break the enemies will to fight, thus ending the war and bringing about peace with Japan still to this day.

How is this hard to understand? You have a country with a military that is trained to die for the cause (Kamikaze pilots, etc). A country that was NOT going to back down. War was inevitable. So we had to figure out the fastest way to end it with the least amount of causalities. If we're (America) wrong for doing that, then I'm sorry, I don't want to be right.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 01:08 AM
link   
What I see here is an article written in a manner to convince those with little understand of the region. But once you see through the thing veils of intellect you notice their is little substance to it what-so-ever.

Military force used to coerce Iran into doing what America wants is always an option. But when that option is clearly on the table (as it is now) and displayed openly it makes it difficult to talk to the other side. What America needs to do if it wants to talk to Iran, is get serious about a diplomatic initiative. Egotistic culture both in America and Iran ensure that any talks between the countries have to occur between intermediaries. This will have to continue, as opting for secret talks wouldn't ensure any sense of commitment between the two sides. People discuss Obama's renewed initiative after his election, to talk to Iran. But this was really false. The sanctions were never lifted, infact they increased and neither side ever became more accomodating.

Today Iran has a right to feel threatened. America only just withdrew from Iraq, but large amounts of forces still remain in neighbouring Afghanistan. There are bases in Kuwait, Georgia and Saudi Arabia effectively surrounding Iran. The 5th fleet, including a Carrier, destroyers, submarnes and frigates is currently stationed in Bahrain. If America were to really be committed to war, it could role over Iran in a matter of weeks.

With that said, the US needs to take serious steps to drawing Iran to the negotiating table. Steps such as offering to provide aid and help with harnessing nuclear power for civillian purposes, lifting sanctions if Iran meets international norms in monetaring its nuclear program (which it in many cases has been) and other carrots. It should use its diplomacy to draw Iran in and it should have co-operated with Iran when withdrawing from Iraq.

If Iran did acquire nuclear weaponary it could prove de-stabilizing. Saudi Arabia already has negotiated a deal with Pakistan, to have Pakistani nuclear weapons stationed in Saudi Arabia should such occur and Israel has threatened on numerous occasions that it would strike Iran if this were to happen. None-the-less Iran is currently only enriching uranium at 20% (80% is needed to make the bomb) and it seems more likely that Iran wants to have the ability to develop a bomb in a short amount of time (say 3 months) if it feels threatened. Japan has the same capability.



Iran has proven it has no interest in long-term stability in the region, unless it is the preeminent power.

This is a bold statement, but also fruitless. During the Iraqi occupation, Iran proved to co-operate with the US in relation to promoting stability in Iraq. Of course once relations between the US sowerred this collapsed. While Iran is an Islamic Republic run by conservative mullahs, this does not suggest it is not rational and does not have its interests (survival) in mind.

This belief that Iran can strike the US is also unsubstantiated. Iran does not have the balistic missile capability to deliver a nuclear warhead all the way to America. Infact neither does Israel. It could organize to bring a "dirty bomb" into the US through a terror network willing to carry out the job, but if it were to do so and be caught (it would probably recieve the blame wether guilty or not) then it would risk not only international condemnation but it would also effectively lose its closest allies China and Russia and Syria would most likely also distiance itself from Iran effectively isolating the Islamic Republic.

The biggest concern facing the international community when any country acquires a nuclear weapon is inreased regional instability and a regional arms race. But in my humble opinion, l leveling Iran isn't the solution and the cost would outweigh the benefit. Opening up diplomaticaly and taking some serious initiative (even if it requires swallowing ego) is the only option to stoping Iran getting a nuclear weapon.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 01:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by mkgandhas
reply to post by seagull
 


a moderator is talking this....


disgusting....

IF americans think like this,I hope Russia nukes and wages biological and thermonuclear genocide and eradicates the americans from this planet. We don't need genocidal american warmongers.



Ummmm...... shouldn't you be looking in the mirror making statements like that??????? I guess all we need are genocidal NON-American warmongers eh?



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 01:55 AM
link   
reply to post by pavil
 


You know I thought the same thing when I first read that.

More of that double-standard anti-Americanism.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 03:17 AM
link   

Originally posted 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...

Yeah so, when you're dealing with a religious fanatic person who is armed with a pistol and claimed his will to harm you, while you hold a shotgun, best thing to do is lay down the shotgun in hopes he will, too?
Perhaps you should try this and come back at us with your test results.


I don't think that Iran actually intends to use them, should they get them...they aren't stupid either. Or suicidal. We hope.

I honestly want to know what makes you so sure Iran don't intend to use them. They are paying good money to have them, risking their own scientist's lives in order to achieve nuclear status, hide it in secrecy, make bombastic claims about ridding their enemies, and the list of shady activity goes on.
All of this while taking into account the fact that they are a theocracy, led by a council of religious extremists with a single ruler on the top ladder of decision makers way ahead of the "secular" (if you can even call it secular) government, and add into consideration their belief in the 12 imam, which is basically a doomsday scenario and a beginning of a Muslim take-over of Earth...

Yeah, your hopes really do a good job making the people in the hit range of Iranian missiles feel a LOT better.

What, you're going to use the ATS infamous speech of how they haven't attacked anyone in 300 years, or post a nice pictures of inside Iran to reinforce your opinion? Then you may want to check which armed militias they are funding (both money and weaponry) and how active were/are they in being hostile.

I don't care for the "if you have them why can't they?" argument. If a cop has weapons, should a street gangster has them too, for the sake of fairness?



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 03:34 AM
link   
Maybe Iran wants these weapons to protect itself as it sees the US and allies invading various countries and supporting revolution in others



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 03:37 AM
link   
...and, if Iran is intent on a,Muslim takeover of the world, then it hardly makes sense to destroy the world



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 04:25 AM
link   
reply to post by IsraeliGuy
 




Yeah so, when you're dealing with a religious fanatic person who is armed with a pistol and claimed his will to harm you, while you hold a shotgun, best thing to do is lay down the shotgun in hopes he will, too? Perhaps you should try this and come back at us with your test results.


But in this case Iran isn't even claiming to have a gun. So why should a man that is armed fear a man that isn't?



I honestly want to know what makes you so sure Iran don't intend to use them. They are paying good money to have them, risking their own scientist's lives in order to achieve nuclear status, hide it in secrecy, make bombastic claims about ridding their enemies, and the list of shady activity goes on.


If other countries would stop murdering Iran's scientist then their lives wouldn't be at risk would they? And Israel is the last nation to complain about another nations secrecy when it comes to nuclear power. When was the last time Israel allowed the inspectors in to have a look around?




All of this while taking into account the fact that they are a theocracy, led by a council of religious extremists with a single ruler on the top ladder of decision makers way ahead of the "secular" (if you can even call it secular) government, and add into consideration their belief in the 12 imam, which is basically a doomsday scenario and a beginning of a Muslim take-over of Earth...


So Jews and Christians are allowed to pray for the end of days but Muslims aren't. Little hypocritical don't you think?




Then you may want to check which armed militias they are funding (both money and weaponry) and how active were/are they in being hostile.


Iran is giving money and weapons to people to fight back against a hostile invading regime America used to do the same thing all the time. Look at America now we give money and weapons to a nation that has broken more international laws than the rest of the world combined not to mention committing crimes against humanity on a daily basis. And we act like Iran is the bad guy.




I don't care for the "if you have them why can't they?" argument. If a cop has weapons, should a street gangster has them too, for the sake of fairness?


In our society if the gangster hasn't been convicted of a crime then he has the right to own a weapon.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 04:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Drunkenshrew
 


Iran has more then shown its hatred for Israel . Tyrants will sometimes make public there intend. Hitler warned that he intended to invade the Soviet Union in his book Mein Kampf. Appeasement only brings about destruction.

reply to post by superman2012
 


Nice use of a Straw man . BTW its illogical to suggest Iran would develop nukes and not ever use them offensively.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 05:38 AM
link   
reply to post by xpert11
 


Illogical to claim that Iran would develop nukes and not use them?
Who pay you?



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 05:42 AM
link   
show us where the money is coming from.....please???

you know, pay as you go and all that.....



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 05:58 AM
link   
The root of the problem here is Christians believe that they must support "Israel" no matter what. Deceived they are.

The Bible says that Israel is in the heart, and is not a physical place.

Israel cannot be supported at the Federal level by a "government" using violence. We can only do it individually in our hearts.

This "Israel" they fight over is just a regular old piece of land. A sentimental piece of land yes, but just land regardless. It also mentions in the bible that these are false Jews.

But please, do not simply take my word for it, look for yourselves.
edit on 23-1-2012 by L00kingGlass because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 06:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by buster2010

But in this case Iran isn't even claiming to have a gun. So why should a man that is armed fear a man that isn't?


Because they have a history of lying??!!


If other countries would stop murdering Iran's scientist then their lives wouldn't be at risk would they? And Israel is the last nation to complain about another nations secrecy when it comes to nuclear power. When was the last time Israel allowed the inspectors in to have a look around?


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.


So Jews and Christians are allowed to pray for the end of days but Muslims aren't. Little hypocritical don't you think?


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.


Iran is giving money and weapons to people to fight back against a hostile invading regime America used to do the same thing all the time. Look at America now we give money and weapons to a nation that has broken more international laws than the rest of the world combined not to mention committing crimes against humanity on a daily basis. And we act like Iran is the bad guy.


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.


In our society if the gangster hasn't been convicted of a crime then he has the right to own a weapon.


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.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 06:33 AM
link   
reply to post by seagull
 


Where is your disclaimer? I'm assuming not all ATS staff have the same blinkered view of this scenario as your narrow minded vision of Iran wanting a destabilized region - and quite how you've concluded this I don't know. But, my point is you're a forum moderator, and hence your words are representative of your position. Which, now is ATS's position.

Do you have proof or purely speculation that Iran are pursuing a nuclear weapon? I know the IAEA don't have any proof, so the chances of it turning up here are, well let's say unlikely.

Finally, your reactions to Iran 'destabilizing' US allies is fictional when you consider that no Iranian troops are stationed in North America bombing your neighbours and setting up camps along the Canadian border perhaps. Were they you would have legitimate concern of Iran's desire to destabilize a region. But the shoe is firmly on the other foot. The USA have been destabilizing the middle east for over 2 decades, openly, and through clandestine, previously classified now admitted, Coup d'état's even longer.

Iran need a nuke to prevent the onslaught which is gearing up to face them. Israel will just have to let a little wee come out when the announcement is made and deal with it like adults.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 06:36 AM
link   
Another war mongering anti-human



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 06:39 AM
link   
@xpert11
And Israel have showed their hatred for everyone else outside of their borders.... Blood brothers with the Nazis it seems :dn

Seems some of the mods want to start their own army and kill innocent Iranians

edit on 23-1-2012 by Master Shen long because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 06:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by seagull

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.



Kind of like when the Bush family hosted the Bin Laden's the day before 9/11, huh? Oh the irony.

Again, no disclaimer. As a moderator it is your responsibility to ensure that your opinions are clearly marked as such otherwise any and all of your comments, under this account, are to be construed as opinions of the website, and the company. Sort it out.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 06:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11
reply to post by Drunkenshrew
 


Iran has more then shown its hatred for Israel . Tyrants will sometimes make public there intend. Hitler warned that he intended to invade the Soviet Union in his book Mein Kampf. Appeasement only brings about destruction.

reply to post by superman2012
 


Nice use of a Straw man . BTW its illogical to suggest Iran would develop nukes and not ever use them offensively.


ANOTHER ONE!!! Where's your disclaimer??? You are posting personal opinion from a staff member account. If this IS the opinion of the staff, please one of the owners tell me and I'll bid you all farewell, forever.

Now, addressing your points:

Is it illogical for North Korea to have nukes and not use them against South Korea? No it's a fact. But because they have nukes the USA and SK did very little when North Korea tested their resolve by shelling Yeonpyeong isalnd last year. Imagine Iran shelling the West Bank. You think that wouldn't kick off a conflict? Conclusion: Nuclear deterrent works.

Is it logical for Pakistan to have nukes and not use them against India? No, also fact. This is why nothing will ever happen over Kashmir. Sure there will be disagreements and tension but as both sides have nukes noone is willing to really test their resolve.

Not so with Iran. Iran is a sitting duck, (almost) defenseless against the potential of an 'allied' attack. So, they should (especially as a signatory to the NPT) have access to nuclear deterrents. It's not right that anyone has such vile weaponry. But history proves time and again that it's the only surefire way to keep tensions on a simmer.

And, as for Hitler, the British Jewish community (and hence, the power elite at the time) declared a boycott on German products in early 1933. Kind of like sanctions, backing an opponent into an untenable position. Economic warfare is the most dangerous form of provocation. I don't believe all I hear about the 2nd world war.



new topics

top topics



 
32
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join