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.

 

Iran Warns of Pre-Emptive Action in Nuclear Dispute

page: 1
10
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 06:09 AM
link   

Iran Warns of Pre-Emptive Action in Nuclear Dispute


www.nytimes.com

LONDON — As tension grew in its nuclear dispute with the West, Iran was reported on Tuesday to have struck an increasingly bellicose tone, warning that it would take pre-emptive action against perceived foes if it felt its national interests were threatened.
(visit the link for the full news article)



Mod Edit: Review This Link: Breaking Alternative News Guidelines -- Copy the Exact Headline
edit on 2/21/2012 by semperfortis because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 06:09 AM
link   
I'm not really sure what to make of this, could it be another cold war? Perhaps. I think it's only a matter of time now before Israel actually does strike and drags everyone else into a conflict with it. The only real target Iran could strike would be Israel so it's likely Israel will respond to this threat with action IMO.

www.nytimes.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 06:14 AM
link   
I want all nuclear dismantled on this planet. And that goes for the US and Russia too, and all nuclear power plants. Pre-emptive nuclear attack is not even thinkable and all the leaders serve the group of dark hat psycho's controlling this world.

Also advanced nuclear detection capacity and technology that incapacitates all of it, unless its cold fusion or something that enhances society in a peaceful way, its evil.

Nuclear is primitive compared to their real scalar type technology to begin with. Lauren Moret said they developed it at the same time and ionized our ionosphere with the nuclear to create the platform needed for their real super weapons that were scalar.

And that needs to be used only in ways that enhance progression and equality of all people, not through nuking our atmosphere and not weaponry.

Rather see high technology sniffing out strongholds of corruption and turning all their weapons off.
edit on 21-2-2012 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)


+6 more 
posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 06:18 AM
link   
reply to post by TheGreatest
 


I love the smell of propaganda in the morning.

The thread title is misleading since no where in the article does it mention a preemptive strike. All of Iran's actions have been political, such as cutting England and France from oil, and other Euro nations.

BTW, it's not your fault that the title is misleading, the forum requires you copy and paste the title so it's not you who worded this garbage.

These MSM outlets have a bad habit of printing articles with outrageous titles that have nothing to do with the content.

Peace.

ETA: if Iran were to strike today, most the world would consider it self defense, not preemptive. These sanctions and assassinations are acts of war, nothing less.
edit on 21-2-2012 by Corruption Exposed because: (no reason given)


+14 more 
posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 06:36 AM
link   
This post isnt meant to offend...

Nor is it meant to please either...

Iran can suck it...

Why does the masses here at ATS love Iran?
Have conspiracies blinded us?
Cos all i hear 90% if the time is "poor poor iran"

Cos last time I checked Iran wasnt exactly the poster child for "peace and love"

Executing left and right over barbaric ideologies...

They are extreme fundsmentalists seeking nuclear weapons...

Their idea of sound foreign relations is pink drone toys...

If Iran strikes first they deserve what they get in return..

I support no war...

But dont tell me Iran deserves to kill thousands of innocents cos of some sanction...
edit on 2/21/12 by EvolEric because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 06:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Unity_99
 


I would like a world without nukes as well BUT-we can't un-invent technology sadly.
The nuclear cat is well and truly out of the bag,and there is no putting it back.

So maybe an alternative would be if all nations had a nuke capability-that way we would have a level playing field at least,and a kind of global mutually agreed destruction system.

Just an idea,and maybe not a great one-but at least all countries would be able to deal with one another without certain countries holding the upper hand over others-or being able to "punch above their weight,"as Tony Blair once said of Britain's nuke capability.

I just cannot see a world without nukes-certain countries would never give them up,and the rest would claim they have while keeping a secret stash IMHO.

Don't get me wrong Unity_99,your idea is better-I just cannot see it happening with the way people are.
edit on 21/2/2012 by Silcone Synapse because: extra words added



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 06:57 AM
link   


y
its still not about loving iran. its about disliking the route of imperialism the US has taken and the inhumanity of the terror state of israel.



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 07:28 AM
link   
reply to post by EvolEric
 


EvolEric,

I think you might be misinterpreting the sentiments of those who see an attack on Iran as wrong. That doesn't translate to "Love for the Iranian Government." Nope. And as far as the Iranian people go, I've had much worse trouble out of some Americans frankly, from the people I've met.

American military officials have already stated that they are not 100% convinced of Iran's pursuit of a nuclear weapons program. While politicians continue to blindly accuse and flap their utterly gross lips.

I've believed for some time that Iran's best option is to strike first, if no one can put Israel on a leash. Israel is being utterly foolish. They think they are just going to waltz in there and bomb, bomb, bomb...bomb, bomb Iran. But this time their cover will probably be blown by either Russia and/or China, the minute Israel moves to make that strike.

If Iran does strike first, it will probably be suddenly and with wide coverage. And it will be in preemptive response to a shown Israel attempt to make a military move towards them- gathered from Russian/Chinese military intelligence.

Iran's best hope is to make that strike as damaging and widespread as they can, so that they cause the biggest political mess possible- and put the bigger powers at odds against each other. Which is already happening to a degree.

Imagine the entire NATO force in all of Persia attacked viciously from all sides, and basically destroyed. A purging of American imperialism in the middle east, if you will. Basically daring the US, France and the UK to try and use their nuclear arsenals. Cause ultimately the Russians are much better prepared for that. At least they have made some serious moves to protect their populations. In contrast, the US government has only taken taxpayer money and built highly protected shelters for themselves, while leaving the population completely exposed.

It's just Blowback. Ask Ron Paul. He knows where this is headed. And it is why he wants us the hell out of their faces, and off their lands. And I agree.



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 07:28 AM
link   
Honestly, the answer is simple here. Total worldwide nuclear disarmament.



Until we get to that point, we have a reason to fear. There's no argument. Sure the logistics of that are almost as complicated as trying to figure out how to travel faster than the speed of light. But with actual sane people making the decisions of the world, ya never know. But Im not holding my breath, just preparing to protect my wife when it all goes to hell.



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 07:39 AM
link   
It sounds like Iran is just playing Israel's game with all the spin that has been flowing through the media. It is pretty sad that discussions have to go to this level to make any progress, but Israel has failed to show any compromise in past negotiations, only responding to strength.



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 07:48 AM
link   
i also want a world without nuclear weapons but what will we use as a war deterent then.
if all countries dismantled every nuke then every country would be at risk from invasion.

i understand why iran wants a nuke but a government who puts its religious views before its human rights is too dangerous to ever be trusted with such weapons.

peace is an unatural state of humanity but since the nuke was invented, peace has been a bit easier to control.
but now we have a world where the owners of nuclear weapons can make the rules for those who cannot own nuclear weapons.
the world sucks and is getting worse rapidly.



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 07:54 AM
link   
reply to post by EvolEric
 




Why does the masses here at ATS love Iran?


Because the masses are filled with contrarians...people that grew up with nothing else to do except argue with everyone around them.

The difference is, most people who love to argue, are very good at it...unfortunately none of them have found their way to ATS to support Iran. The best pro-Iran story you'll get at ATS is


Well...uhh...Iran just wants PEACE, leave them alone. They didn't say all those things that the news showed videos of them saying, it's completely doctored by the CIA to create a post-9/11 global catastrophe that will usher in the new world order and force us all to wear computer chips in our hands while the government prods our brains with probes from planet xenu.


...and im not being facetious.
edit on 21-2-2012 by PrimePorkchop because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 07:57 AM
link   
reply to post by PrimePorkchop
 


Would you like to test that theory? I think you'll find that I can debate the issue quite succinctly. I'm happy to debate you either here or in the actual debate forums if you prefer?

As for the topic, this is more propaganda. "semi-official" news sources, they state only their "enemies", as in no direct nation is named. Yeah, that's really credible.

The war drums continue.

~Tenth



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 07:59 AM
link   
I was really hoping to find a hole in this..
but sure as sugar...

the Iranian armed forces deputy said straight up if we think your going to hit us, we will hit you first.

And fair enough..

They havent done anything wrong, enemies are building forces on their shore lines and doing small guerilla
style attacks

If Israel can strike Iraqs reactors..
If Israel can strike Syrias power plants
If Israel can strike during the 6day war..

..then Iran must be permitted the same laws..

History will only see what the ISRAELI controlled media wants it to see..

and all of us who knew the truth wont be around long enough to remind everyone that it was the WEST who picked this fight and sent the world into a dark place.

you really do get the feeling its just around the corner...



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 08:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by PrimePorkchop
 


Would you like to test that theory? I think you'll find that I can debate the issue quite succinctly. I'm happy to debate you either here or in the actual debate forums if you prefer?

As for the topic, this is more propaganda. "semi-official" news sources, they state only their "enemies", as in no direct nation is named. Yeah, that's really credible.

The war drums continue.

~Tenth


I noticed a quite a bit of pro Iran or very anti USA posters here lately. But that could be like anything else. The louder voices just stand out more, they don't represent the silent majority.



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 08:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by listerofsmeg
i also want a world without nuclear weapons but what will we use as a war deterent then.
if all countries dismantled every nuke then every country would be at risk from invasion.

i understand why iran wants a nuke but a government who puts its religious views before its human rights is too dangerous to ever be trusted with such weapons.

peace is an unatural state of humanity but since the nuke was invented, peace has been a bit easier to control.
but now we have a world where the owners of nuclear weapons can make the rules for those who cannot own nuclear weapons.
the world sucks and is getting worse rapidly.


Id disagree.

Id rather have countries at risk for being invaded than a single 21st century nuke possibly going off. There can be deterrents to avoid invasions...

And Id argue nothing changed after the nuke. Where have you seen more peace in the world, or even a semblance of control of peace??? Since the nuke, JUST the US has seen Korea ( still going on), Vietnam, Iran Contra, The gulf war 1, bosnia, Sept 11, Iraq, Afghanistan,



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 08:22 AM
link   
reply to post by bknapple32
 


before the nuke we had 2 world wars within 30 years. only a nuke can put an end to that kind of warring, do you disagree with this?
yeah we've had many wars since but nothing at the scale of what we've had in pre-nuke earth.
the only countries that get invaded these days are countries without nukes, but i wouldn't recomend letting them al have nukes but you must understand why they would want them, its not simply to blow their enemies to tiny peices, its to secure thier countries from invasion.

ps..none of your examples are nuclear countries so that doesnt disprove anything.
edit on 21/2/2012 by listerofsmeg because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 08:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by listerofsmeg
reply to post by bknapple32
 


before the nuke we had 2 world wars within 30 years. only a nuke can put an end to that kind of warring, do you disagree with this?
yeah we've had many wars since but nothing at the scale of what we've had in pre-nuke earth.
the only countries that get invaded these days are countries without nukes, but i wouldn't recomend letting them al have nukes but you must understand why they would want them, its not simply to blow their enemies to tiny peices, its to secure thier countries from invasion.


Respectfully, Id have to disagree again.. Let me explain...

First, WW1 did not need a nuke to end it. It was the decisions after WW1 that led to WW2. Hitlers rise to power was enhanced by bad decisions that destroyed Germany's economy which essentially gave the third Reich a red carpet to dictatorship. Yes we used a nuke to end WW2, but Europe was falling under ally control and there is plenty debate on what exactly the nukes on Japan did. Saved 100,000 US troop lives at the cost of 250,000 Japanese civilian lives. I believe the defeat of Japan was inevitable with or without a nuke after the fall of Germany.

So pre nuke age, we had two world wars with countless live lost, but that too was due to other factors. The world switched from trench warfare to guerrilla warfare. This lead to less lives being lost in the post nuke age. Post nuke, weve had more wars.



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 08:32 AM
link   
reply to post by bknapple32
 


The anti US posters have been here for as long as I have, and there is no "pro Iran" crowd, there is a strong anti war crowd around here who seems to be able to understand that this is a massive propaganda campaign.

Those of us who remember history know what's going on, and how it's being done. The War Machine that is the West, Europe and Israel have not changed their tactics.

This has been in the works for a very long time:



As for the silent majority, most people don't understand what's going on, and it's really hard to have a educated opinion when you don't know about the topic enough. Not their fault, takes quite a bit of puzzling together various events to understand what's really going on in the middle east.

~Tenth



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 08:39 AM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


Understood... In your opinion what would suffice for pro Iran? Aside from the obvious "down with America, yay iran" type of response. I feel like Ive seen some pro Iran posts. If I find them, can I link them in this thread as its semi on topic?




top topics



 
10
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join