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.

 

POLITICS: Iran Rejects Kerry's Nuclear Proposal

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 4 2004 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by cryptorsa1001
Muaddib, who are you calling a serial killer? I have never killed anyone. Clarify your accusation that I am a serial killer!!!!!


Did i say anywhere in my post that I thought you were a serial killer? or did i say something like..."let's follow your line of reasoning...by making an analogy?....



[edit on 4-10-2004 by Muaddib]



posted on Oct, 4 2004 @ 05:01 PM
link   
I can hear it now deep within the bowels of the internet. Slowly the rumbling is growing, the beat is growing stronger. I can hear it now the democrats are going to say the Bush administration is working with Iran to derail the Kerry campaign. Iran is denying Kerry's plan because they want George Bush to win the presidency.

Don't laugh, You'll probably hear it soon.



posted on Oct, 4 2004 @ 05:26 PM
link   
As one of the many being offered by the in power administration? Sure it grabs a nice headline here, but it's Republican spin to think it's not being one-of-the-many scenarios on the Iranian subject.
No one feels Iran to be a threat outside of Rove Republicans & Israel....which is saying the same thing.



posted on Oct, 4 2004 @ 05:36 PM
link   

They are going for their own nuclear program and own nukes, they're not going to take substitutes.

Too many states have shown that the only way to achieve national self-determination is by attaining nukes.

They are not going to be deterred by peaceful means. They are aiming for diplomatic recognition as a country without outside changes imposed on them and it seems nukes are the only way. Things are now coming to a head, either they will get them or we have a war with Iran.


Pretty much hitting the nail right on the head there...

I think some are missing another point though....it isn't that Iran poses a threat to the US, but that it poses a threat to Isreal....
Eventually, all of them will be nuclear powers....you can't stop that. The tech is over half a century old....it's out there, and apparently for sale.

Amazing that we can all see the chess pieces sliding across the board in the game that is WWIII, yet there isn't anything we can do but attempt to delay it... It's a game that has already started...and may yet prove deadly to our species....



posted on Oct, 4 2004 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bout Time
No one feels Iran to be a threat outside of Rove Republicans & Israel....which is saying the same thing.


Really? is that why the UN has been involved in this and has demanded from Iran not to continue such program?


Tehran, Iran, Sep. 19 (UPI) -- Iran Sunday dismissed the U.N. nuclear watchdog's demand to freeze uranium enrichment, saying the country would not accept any obligation as the process was a right respected by the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Excerpted from.
Analysis: Iran defiant on nuclear demands

Or is this merely another democrat/liberal spin on this story?... trying to make people think the US and Israel are the only ones who don't want a nuclear Iran?...



[edit on 4-10-2004 by Muaddib]



posted on Oct, 4 2004 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kwintz
This is why i believe Bush would be better for the job the next 4 years. I don't want an indecisive man such as Kerry in office while NK and Iran have nuclear weapons. Call me an arrogant american, but i don't want my country being pushed around by anyone, let alone rogue nations. Bush is firm and strong, and i think he could more successfully handle this nuclear situation--pre-emptive "isreali" strikes will happen very soon, IMO.


Excuse me: I am unclear on exactly how you perceive Iran as pushing you around?
Last time I checked, it is our country (the US of A) that has been doing all the pushing around in the Middle East, either directly or through our client state, Israel.

U.



posted on Oct, 4 2004 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
Or is this merely another democrat/liberal spin on this story?... trying to make people think the US and Israel are the only ones who don't want a nuclear Iran?...

[edit on 4-10-2004 by Muaddib]


Muaddib, there is a not so subtle difference between considering IRan a threat, and wanting it to become a nuclear power. Under the principles of non-proliferation, most of the world agrees on the principle that no new states should gain nuclear capacities. This principle applies to Iran just as it does to any other non-nuclear nation.
This does NOT equate with considering the country in question as a threat in any specific sense.

U.



posted on Oct, 4 2004 @ 06:15 PM
link   
Sorry Muaddib, after reading your post again I see that you should have placed a comma after the you in your sentence. The absence of the comma changes the meaning of your comment.



posted on Oct, 4 2004 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by upuaut
Excuse me: I am unclear on exactly how you perceive Iran as pushing you around?
Last time I checked, it is our country (the US of A) that has been doing all the pushing around in the Middle East, either directly or through our client state, Israel.

U.


Do tell us upuaut, since when was the US alone on the war in Afgahnistan and IRaq? wasn't there a coalition that was first brought together under Clinton to deal with Saddam, even by force if necessary?

I guess there is no coalition in Iraq right now, or before...



posted on Oct, 4 2004 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by cryptorsa1001
Sorry Muaddib, after reading your post again I see that you should have placed a comma after the you in your sentence. The absence of the comma changes the meaning of your comment.


I do realize that I should have put a comma, but even the absence of the comma does not change it's meaning. I guess we do agree it was a misunderstanding.



posted on Oct, 4 2004 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib

Originally posted by upuaut
Excuse me: I am unclear on exactly how you perceive Iran as pushing you around?
Last time I checked, it is our country (the US of A) that has been doing all the pushing around in the Middle East, either directly or through our client state, Israel.

U.


Do tell us upuaut, since when was the US alone on the war in Afgahnistan and IRaq? wasn't there a coalition that was first brought together under Clinton to deal with Saddam, even by force if necessary?

I guess there is no coalition in Iraq right now, or before...


My point was that we are doing far more pushing around in the region than Iran is. Did you not get that point? I tried to make it clear...

The coalition relevant to the latest bullying in the region is the 'so called' coalition of the willing (alarm bells should go off that they even need to call it such a redundant name): the name itself is seemingly defensive against comments on coercion. And necessarily so: the amount of economic pressure exerted by the US to get many of those 'willing' states on board is phenomenal. In the case of Turkey, it was not quite sufficient in the end: the Turkish government finally listened to the voice of the people who democratically elected it, and set serious limitations on the US deployment of troups on Turkish soil for the launching of the ground attack against Iraq.

Any which way you want to spin it, the fact remains that the latest wave of weight-throwing in the Middle-East has been US-driven.

If you can make a case that Iran is doing more 'pushing around' than we are, be my guest. Otherwise, perhaps you will allow my comment to Kwintz to stand?

U.



posted on Oct, 4 2004 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by upuaut
My point was that we are doing far more pushing around in the region than Iran is. Did you not get that point? I tried to make it clear...
...........
If you can make a case that Iran is doing more 'pushing around' than we are, be my guest. Otherwise, perhaps you will allow my comment to Kwintz to stand?

U.


i see, so do tell me how has the US pushed Iran exactly into claiming they will destroy western civilization?


Iran Threatens the West

In recent weeks, prominent Iranian figures have issued statements against the West, both within the government and in the newspapers close to the regime. These statements include threats to U.S. and European interests and targets throughout the world. The following is a collection of recent threats and is part of a comprehensive report on Iran's nuclear policy, to be published soon:


Excerpted from.
www.c-d-i.org...


"Today we have in our possession long-range smart missiles which can reach many of the interests and vital resources of the Americans and of the Zionist regime in our region. Thus, if the enemies show stupidity and make any mistake towards Iran, [Iran] will certainly use all the means and capabilities at its disposal.

"Today we enjoy high deterrent ability, and if the enemy acts in madness and wants to try his luck, he will, as the leader said, quickly see his black fate, and will regret acting against Iran's Islamic regime." [4]


Excerpted from.
www.jihadwatch.org...

Note Iran states the west as the enemy. Is this the only time when Iran has made such threats?


"the White House's 80 years of exclusive rule are likely to become 80 seconds of hell that will burn to ashes. Those who resist Iran will be struck from directions they never expected."


Excerpted from.
www.krsi.net...

The Iranian government has clearly gone beyond saying they are protecting themselves with these threats....those who resist Iran will be struck from directions they never expected....


To these facts add that an Arab newspaper published in London and Beirut reported that an Iranian intelligence unit has established a center called "The Brigades of the Shahids of the Global Islamic Awakening," controlled by a Revolutionary Guards intelligence officer, Hassan Abbasi. The newspaper has a tape recording of Abbasi when he spoke of Iran's secret plans, which include "a strategy drawn up for the destruction of Anglo-Saxon civilization."


To bring this about, Abbasi said, "There are 29 sensitive sites in the U.S. and in the West. We have already spied on these sites and we know how we are going to attack them." This Revolutionary Guard officer continued by saying, "Iran's missiles are now ready to strike at Western targets, and as soon as the instructions arrive from Ali Khamenei, we will launch our missiles at their cities and installations."



Excerpted from.
www.krsi.net...

Tell me, are they saying in the above that they will attack the west only if they are attacked?....or are they saying they are waiting for the signal to attack?.... This is clearly indicating they plan on attacking the west no matter what.


[edit on 4-10-2004 by Muaddib]



posted on Oct, 4 2004 @ 11:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib

i see, so do tell me how has the US pushed Iran exactly into claiming they will destroy western civilization?



Before we delve into your excerpts, I will point out to you that my point, which you seem to continue to ignore, referred to a precise post made by Kwintz in which he claimed Iran was pushing the US around. You can try to divert us away from that as much as you want, and I might even indulge you, but unless you can make a compelling argument againt it, the point at which you picked up my comment to Kwintz remains unchallenged.




"Today we have in our possession long-range smart missiles which can reach many of the interests and vital resources of the Americans and of the Zionist regime in our region. Thus, if the enemies show stupidity and make any mistake towards Iran, [Iran] will certainly use all the means and capabilities at its disposal.

"Today we enjoy high deterrent ability, and if the enemy acts in madness and wants to try his luck, he will, as the leader said, quickly see his black fate, and will regret acting against Iran's Islamic regime." [4]


There is nothing shocking about this whatsoever. This excerpt actually concretely speaks of deterrence. The fact that you can actually include such a quote shows you are not reasonable on the topic of Iran. Why should they not have missiles targetting nations that pose a threat to their national security and self-determination?
This particular quote cannot be considered a threat in the context of modern geopolitical planning. It is insurance.



Note Iran states the west as the enemy.


That's a rather ignorant blanket statement. Iran's various political figures have a range of attitudes towards the many different nations that comprise the West.



"the White House's 80 years of exclusive rule are likely to become 80 seconds of hell that will burn to ashes. Those who resist Iran will be struck from directions they never expected."


You know what? I went to the source you linked to, and the article does not give any context to this declaration. As such, I cannot take it seriously. The lower case 't' at the beginning of the quote even indicates it was grabbed in mid sentence! I find it it highly likely that in the original text, some sort of conditional was expressed for the White House's 80 years of exclusive rule to become 80 seconds of hell.



The Iranian government has clearly gone beyond saying they are protecting themselves with these threats....those who resist Iran will be struck from directions they never expected....


As I said above, your excerpts do not demonstrate this conclusively. And frankly, Teheran would have to be completely insane to go beyond a deterrent diplomatic stance regarding its military programs. It has nothing to gain by making aggressive threats, as opposed to statements of intent to employ deterrent arsenals if need be.



Tell me, are they saying in the above that they will attack the west only if they are attacked?....or are they saying they are waiting for the signal to attack?.... This is clearly indicating they plan on attacking the west no matter what.


You can read as well as I can, I imagine. No, in that particular excerpt, they are not saying they will attack only if attacked first, but that does not equate to saying the opposite.
Yes, they say they are waiting on a signal to attack, just as the US nuclear deterrent arsenals have been for fifty odd years. Is this a clear indication that the US plans to fire nuclear missiles no matter what?
Please.

If in your next post, you jump to such wildly unwarranted conclusions, I frankly won't find much reason to continue this discussion.

What we are witnessing here is Iran going through a phase we should be familiar with: one triggered by our own failure to commit to demilitarization. The arms race we ran against the USSR, during which the statements Iran is now making were made by both sides more times than you could count, is now being reincarnated because we failed to uphold the non-proliferation principles as they should have applied to our client state, Israel, and have ourselves committed to developing so-called tactical nukes, which Bush rashly declared to the world he reserved the right to use in a non-deterrent scenario.

U.



posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 12:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by upuaut

Before we delve into your excerpts, I will point out to you that my point, which you seem to continue to ignore, referred to a precise post made by Kwintz in which he claimed Iran was pushing the US around.


So...the threats that Iran has made throughout the years are no reason enough for you, and you find them as no reason for Iran pushing the US or the rest of the western world...

How convinient...threats are nothing to worry about huh? i guess that's why Al Qaeda threatened to attack using airplanes against the US and it never happened.....



[edit on 5-10-2004 by Muaddib]



posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 12:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by upuaut

You can read as well as I can, I imagine. No, in that particular excerpt, they are not saying they will attack only if attacked first, but that does not equate to saying the opposite.
Yes, they say they are waiting on a signal to attack, just as the US nuclear deterrent arsenals have been for fifty odd years. Is this a clear indication that the US plans to fire nuclear missiles no matter what?
Please.


i see...so you did not quote the last excerpt I made...can you look again at my last post and tell me which excerpt i was talking about? Let me give you a hint...the last one.

Here it is again.

To bring this about, Abbasi said, "There are 29 sensitive sites in the U.S. and in the West. We have already spied on these sites and we know how we are going to attack them." This Revolutionary Guard officer continued by saying, "Iran's missiles are now ready to strike at Western targets, and as soon as the instructions arrive from Ali Khamenei, we will launch our missiles at their cities and installations."


"We have already spied their sites..."...so...they spied which sites they wanted to attack?

[edit on 5-10-2004 by Muaddib]

[edit on 5-10-2004 by Muaddib]



posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 12:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
"Iran's missiles are now ready to strike at Western targets, and as soon as the instructions arrive from Ali Khamenei, we will launch our missiles at their cities and installations."




Sigh.
I didn't quote it because this board seems to enjoy giving warnings for excessive quoting.
I did address it however.

I will do so AGAIN, but because I don't have the patience to rephrase what was well phrased the first time around, I'll copy and paste from my last post, in the hopes you will realize now that it refers to the above bolded sentence, and to your erroneous conclusion that this means Iran plans to attack without provocation.

________________________________________________________
No, in that particular excerpt, they are not saying they will attack only if attacked first, but that does not equate to saying the opposite.
Yes, they say they are waiting on a signal to attack, just as the US nuclear deterrent arsenals have been for fifty odd years. Is this a clear indication that the US plans to fire nuclear missiles no matter what?
Please.

________________________________________________________



posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 12:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
So...the threats that Iran has made throughout the years are no reason enough for you, and you find them as no reason for Iran pushing the US or the rest of the western world...


As you well know, we would have to examine each of those threats and their historical contexts in order to say anything intelligent about them. If you want to do that, be my guest.

U.



posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 12:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by upuaut

What we are witnessing here is Iran going through a phase we should be familiar with: one triggered by our own failure to commit to demilitarization. The arms race we ran against the USSR, during which the statements Iran is now making were made by both sides more times than you could count, is now being reincarnated because we failed to uphold the non-proliferation principles as they should have applied to our client state, Israel, and have ourselves committed to developing so-called tactical nukes, which Bush rashly declared to the world he reserved the right to use in a non-deterrent scenario.

U.


"Our own failure to commit to demilitarization..."
So you want the US to have no military at all? no weapons at all?...... of course...Kerry's plan to halt all developments of advanced weapons systems in the US, and not to use force to protect the US unless the whole world agrees in such action seems appealing to you....does it?

To give you the benefit of a doubt, do explain what you were trying to say by "our own failure to commit to demilitarization"

Imo, there is nothing we can do about the past now, but is this what you think we should be doing? demilitarize? agree with Kerry's plans?

[edit on 5-10-2004 by Muaddib]

[edit on 5-10-2004 by Muaddib]



posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 12:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
"Our own failure to commit to demilitarization..."
So you want the US to have no military at all? no weapons at all?......


Thank you for giving me the benefit of the doubt. Sincerely.

No, I meant by demilitarization, the process of gradual disarment: the progressive dismantling of our incredibly excessive nuclear arsenal.

The Soviet Union tried to get us to agree to such a process before the Cold War was over, but we refused.
There was some hope the US would start playing ball in this process after the Cold War, but Bush has dashed all hopes of that happening any time soon. He has increased military spending even though the US spends more on its military than the next ten runners up combined, and has taken steps to start a new arms race which can only strengthen the resolve of nations such as Iran to acquire nuclear capabilities.

U.

[edit on 5-10-2004 by upuaut]



posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by upuaut

No, I meant by demilitarization, the process of gradual disarment: the progressive dismantling of our incredibly excessive nuclear arsenal.

The Soviet Union tried to get us to agree to such a process before the Cold War was over, but we refused.
There was some hope the US would start playing ball in this process after the Cold War, but Bush has dashed all hopes of that happening any time soon. He has increased military spending even though the US spends more on its military than the next ten runners up combined, and has taken steps to start a new arms race which can only strengthen the resolve of nations such as Iran to acquire nuclear capabilities.

U.


I see.... so you think that if we demilitarize the whole world is going to follow our example huh?....

Can i ask you how long was Clinton in office and how long he did just this?....

What were the Chinese doing? ......were they demilitarizing? or were they taking advantage that Clinton thought of them as friends and bought military technology from us? I also guess that according to you the scandal of the Chinese stealing other military secrets under Clinton's watch was just a lie?....

Didn't we learn from what the Chinese did during Clinton's administration that the world is not going to disarm, not even if we do it first?.......




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join