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.

 

'Sparks fly' over US policy on Iran at meeting between Netanyahu and US envoy

page: 2
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by mobiusmale
Canada, for example, has very robust and highly developed civilian nuclear technology facilities and reactors. As far as I know, not one of them is buried underground.


Yup. My mother works at the one in Eastern Canada....

It's not underground because it's not threatened from an Airstrike from any country, plus the power all goes to the US.




posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 04:38 PM
link   
If Iran is not building a nuclear bomb, why do they keep saying they will wipe Israel off the map? but no I feel Obama wont wish to align himself up with Israel in the problem they have with Iran, mostly because Obama has a lot in common with Sunni Muslims than Jew or Christians, sad bt true, the proof is in the pud, he gets upset if Muslims get killed, but not a peep if Jews or Christians are killedin Syria or anywhere else.



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 05:48 PM
link   
I'm really surprised that nothing has happened yet. Glad, but surprised.

I really wouldn't put it past Israel to pull a false flag (I hate using that word due to how OVER used it is here) terrorist attack against America and blame Iran in some way just to get the US to support Israel in this. They are sneaky manipulative people, it was mistake getting into bed with them in the first place.



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by CALGARIAN
 


Here is part of an interesting piece by a former US Ambassador.....

www.huffingtonpost.com...

"If You Liked Iraq, You'll Love Iran ---Dennis Jett

Five years ago there was considerable media speculation that the United States was about to bomb Iran to stop its nuclear program. Despite the hype, it was clear that was not going to happen. Times have changed. Now a war with Iran is not imminent, but it is inevitable. And if you liked Iraq, you will love Iran.

A war with Iran will be far worse. For starters, Iran has four times the land area and three times the population of Iraq, so it is not a small challenge. While Iraq had no nuclear program, Iran has a well-developed one, which it claims is for peaceful purposes, with 14 different industrial sites supporting it. Some of them are hardened to withstand an attack and are well defended. So an air war to destroy them won't be easy and a ground war is unthinkable, even for the most hawkish chest-thumpers.

Another problem is the reaction to an American attack. The Bush administration justified invading Iraq by citing its violations of a number of U.N. resolutions. When the United Nations would not authorize the use of force, the United States then ignored it, robbing the operation of its legitimacy. The United States went ahead anyhow, but 48 countries went along. It was a coalition of the coerced and co-opted, but it gave a fig leaf of international acceptability.
If we attack Iran, no country, except perhaps Israel, will be joining us. There will be several Sunni autocrats quietly urging that we hit the Persian Shiites hard, but they will contribute nothing else. No other nation will be willing to kill Iranians and have its forces be killed by them."
While the attack will be condemned around the world, its effect in Iran will be even worse. Invading Iraq brought down Saddam Hussein, but an attack on Iran will consolidate the power of the regime in power. The advocates of war say the Iranians will topple their government once it begins. But an attack will only strengthen the grip of the Iranian leadership just as 9/11 did for President George W. Bush.

At that point the Iranians will have no reason to hide any intention to build a bomb and every reason for doing so. An air campaign would set back their program by two years at best. So it would not be a few air strikes and then victory parades. It would mean a semi-permanent state of war.

And the Iranians will react to being bombed. At a minimum, the unrest and their geographic position on the waterways that carry much of the world's oil will make four dollars for a gallon of gas seem like the good old days.

Then there are the unintended consequences. What if the day after the bombing starts an intelligence report comes in saying factions of the Pakistani military were so angered by an American attack on a fourth Muslim country that some of their nuclear weapons have gone missing and may be on their way to being used?"



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maxmars
reply to post by Aliensun
 


"What if" is a game for philosophers and theologians. What if the Shah had never been installed by the CIA? Perhaps they wouldn't have tagged us their 'Great Satan'.

Evidently this thread has a political purpose... too bad.



You speak a lot of sense Maxmars, especially about the 'political engineering' the CIA did in Iran (and is still doing now to one degree or another), but i don't think you can expect any thread about Israel making demands of the USA to basically start a war with Iran on their behalf (as usual) and stomping its feet and shouting at the US diplomats because it can't get's its way, to be anything less than having a political purpose.

The reality is that any thread about the main protagonists is always going to be political in nature, containing multiple varied viewpoints - I'm glad of it. It stimulates rational debate and shines a beacon on the astounding hypocrisy shown by most of the media reporting on these issues.

Israel is seemingly jumping up and down, screaming at the USA like a petulant teenager whose been told they can't go to the mall. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you.

It's too arrogant for the word arrogant to properly describe!

I'd have told them to shut it, or their pocket-money will be stopped...oh, and they'll be forced to allow IAEA inspectors to view Israeli Nuclear weapons.

My guess is Israel is really creating a stink because the Arab league quite recently made statements about Israeli WMD stockpiles, Nuclear missiles in particular, and that no-one, including the UN Security Council, the IAEA or anyone else has been 'allowed' into Israel to inspect them, or seems particularly bothered to either...plus the fact that next month Iran will have a platform at the IAEA international general conference meeting, and be able to state its case on these matters, including its own areas of co-operation with the IAEA.

Curious timing, isn't it. Israel demanding 'action' taken by the USA by September, just ahead of the IAEA general conference where Iran will be heard by around another 150 nations attending.

This seems to be the Israeli M.O. of covering its own Nuclear, Chemical and Biological Stockpiles and programmes when the subject is raised..it kind of throws a temper tantrum and shouts 'Quick...Look over there!'

I don't think this has a lot to do with Obama either frankly. Except and unless we reckon he ought to be congratulated for not starting a war that will probably escalate into a worldwide conflict involving all major nations and the horrors that would result from that...but i would say that not being insane is an expected job requirement of POTUS, and is par for the course.

Obama didn't launch all of USA's nukes at every nation in the world yesterday either, but i expect a sane man in his place not to do that yesterday or tomorrow, but i don't reckon he should be congratulated for not being barking mad.  



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by CALGARIAN

Originally posted by mobiusmale
Canada, for example, has very robust and highly developed civilian nuclear technology facilities and reactors. As far as I know, not one of them is buried underground.


Yup. My mother works at the one in Eastern Canada....

It's not underground because it's not threatened from an Airstrike from any country, plus the power all goes to the US.


Quite so.

And let's be honest, building straight down is the safest place to build a nuclear reactor anyway. If Japan had built theirs deep underground, the radiation problems from the Fukushima tragedy wouldn't exist today.
edit on 31-8-2012 by MysterX because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maxmars
reply to post by Aliensun
 


"What if" is a game for philosophers and theologians. What if the Shah had never been installed by the CIA? Perhaps they wouldn't have tagged us their 'Great Satan'.

Evidently this thread has a political purpose... too bad.



Exactly! It is a big game of bull#. America makes friends with the wrong people and then turns against them. This happens again and again. Saddam was a friend of bush. Noriega was installed in panama. Bin Laden was a friend who helped defeat the russians in afghanistan. The shah by the cia.

The private central bankers and the military-industrial complex make decisions and the president rubber stamps. Politicians have ZERO ability to make any worthwhile decision. JFK tried and he got killed 50 years ago.

Heil rockefellers and rothschilds, scum of the earth!



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by James1982
I'm really surprised that nothing has happened yet. Glad, but surprised.

I really wouldn't put it past Israel to pull a false flag (I hate using that word due to how OVER used it is here) terrorist attack against America and blame Iran in some way just to get the US to support Israel in this. They are sneaky manipulative people, it was mistake getting into bed with them in the first place.


There is some pretty damming evidence linking the dancing israelis to 9-11. Not to mention two enormous 110 floor towers CANNOT fall STRAIGHT down just because of a few raging fires burning for 40 to 60 minutes. 9-11 was DEFINITELY an inside job and proven wayyyyyy beyond reasonable doubt.

The government could not give a blllleeeeepp about any evidence, even as bush and company RUSHED to invade afghanistan and then iraq with FAKE evidence.

Why on god's green earth should I believe A SINGLE WORD coming out of the american government or israel, considering the level of CRIMINAL TREACHERY, MASS MURDER and CONSPIRACY to commit such atrocites????

This PALES to what the nazis did in the 40's and everyone is STILL FIXATED to how evil hitler was.



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 09:29 PM
link   
What worries me the most about a war with iran is the potential involvement of other larger countries and fallout here at home. Both russia and china are friends to iran, and while we would not be attacking them directly i can't help but think they would provide some help to the iranians. You also have to expect the personal effects this would have on iranians living in the united states. I would fear more retaliatory anger driven attacks inside our borders.

Any disturbance on a global scale in my opinion may push things over the edge. This is a bad time already and it's not wise to make it worse.



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 09:48 PM
link   


When the GENERAL of nato intelligence says it IS FAKE, then it IS fake!



Pretty solid witness there when the five man team of mossad ADMITS they had advance knowledge and it was in their best interest to tape the occurance. Eyewitnesses in new jersey corroborated them being there including the rented van.



Cargo planes seen by fox reporters in new york!

Like I said some people seem to want ww3 anyway they can get it. Fake evidence combined with mistranslations of what the iranian leader says, fake evidence of nuclear/chemical/biological sites in iraq, and complete disregard for the truth.



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by mobiusmale
I think the following is pretty clear:

1) Obama and Netanyahu don't like each other...especially not after Obama's famous "snubbing" incidents.

2) Israel is going in to Iran soon, with or without America help - but if the U.S. does not offer any direct military assistance (at least AWAC's support, mid-air refueling, etc.) then it will have serious repercussions for U.S./Israel relations (which, I know, some would say would be a good thing).

What is not so clear to me is:

1) If Iran's nuclear technology development is only for civilian purposes, why are they burying it so deep underground...and why is this development under military control?

Canada, for example, has very robust and highly developed civilian nuclear technology facilities and reactors. As far as I know, not one of them is buried underground.

2) Why do they think that burying facilities like this underground is a good strategy, in terms of protecting their hardware, and their output? Even if you do not have the weaponry needed to blast all the way through the rock to the production facility...all you have to do is seriously cave in all of the entrances and exits to the facility. If they can't get their enriched uranium out, what good will it be to them?

You would just have to fly back every now and again, every time they clear away the debris, or build new entrances, to make sure they can never put their enriched uranium to use.



This ALONE should tell everyone that the iran-israel thing is a complete sharade to kill people(correction ritual sacrifice), make the price of oil go even higher, and trigger the all important NWO(new world order) supposedly to protect the remaining survivors.

You CANNOT bomb a facility that is hundreds of feet UNDERGROUND! ANYONE with air force experience would tell you this. Even people playing sophisticated flight simultors know this. A daisy cutter the biggest non-nuclear bomb cannot get the job done and I doubt even a nuke would.

They really expect people to BELIEVE(not know) the israeli air force can bomb such a facility from high altitude and destroy it? Unreal!!!!!!



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 11:42 PM
link   
I believe the US is being blackmailed into this war.
They really dont want to touch this, Israel is not going to run riot like the 6day war here..

Iran will lob everything it has against Israel and Iraq, Syria will send in everything it has against the uprisings, and then assist Iran.. Egypt will flood across the Sinai... Saudi will strike Iran, the US will lose ships in the strait, the strait will close and you can then kiss the USA's economic shambles goodbye.. Hello War Time, complete with rationing and tent cities.

the US knows it cannot stomach the war and the downturn thats why its pleading with Israel to go slow, use covert software, hit and runs on scientists seems to work..

but Israel is adamant that it has waited long enough.. the hornets nest its stirring up in Syria is about to reach the optimum time to hit Iran, The public have been desensitized to destruction and anarchy in ME cities, it wont look as bad now.. Israel will be playing the election card on Obama.. trying to convince him..

... it would be a hard choice for Obama..

If the US was involved immediately and hit them hard enough it might just shock them.. but the risks involved cannot be ignored. However, if the US doesnt go in immediately, then Israel will end up with its back against the wall and the nukes will fly.



posted on Sep, 1 2012 @ 09:27 AM
link   
I think we ought to quit telling Israel what to do. There's a flip side to this too: we shouldn't get ourselves involved in a war that doesn't involve us. Israel is a sovereign nation. They have the best military in the Middle East. They should need the help of the United States to take out Iran, and I'm tired of the USG pushing them around, attaching strings to everything we sell them, using foreign aid as a carrot and a stick, and in short telling them what to do. This goes for pretty much every other nation too



posted on Sep, 1 2012 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alternative4u
If Iran is not building a nuclear bomb, why do they keep saying they will wipe Israel off the map? but no I feel Obama wont wish to align himself up with Israel in the problem they have with Iran, mostly because Obama has a lot in common with Sunni Muslims than Jew or Christians, sad bt true, the proof is in the pud, he gets upset if Muslims get killed, but not a peep if Jews or Christians are killedin Syria or anywhere else.


Quite funny post really.

Obama doesn't like Muslims getting killed ?

Odd for somebody who has killed thousands of them and continues to authorise drone bombing them every single day.



posted on Sep, 1 2012 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigyin

Odd for somebody who has killed thousands of them and continues to authorise drone bombing them every single day.


And odd for the "instant winner" of a Nobel Peace Prize back in 2009. He was nominated 2 weeks after taking office....they might have wanted to wait a tad longer to see if he would be worthy of such a lofty award.


"...Barack Obama, who has essentially carried on most Bush policies, even kicking them up a few notches?

"... Obama’s expansion of drone attacks in Pakistan and Somalia, with their routine “collateral damage” to innocents; his flagrant violation of the War Powers Resolution (not to mention the Constitution and his campaign promise) with his intervention in Libya; his intensification of the war in Afghanistan; his sanctions (an act of war) against Iran; his broken pledge to close Guantanamo; his support of indefinite detention without charge; his policy of assassinating even American citizens abroad without due process; his renewal of the PATRIOT Act...his invocation of state secrets to keep torture victims out of court."



"Obama should get credit for “ending the war in Iraq”—but hold on. The December 31, 2011, withdrawal date is set in the Status of Forces Agreement negotiated between the Iraqi government and the Bush administration. Obama tried — but failed — to persuade Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to let U.S. troops stay longer.



"...the detention center at Bagram airbase in Afghanistan has been called “worse than Guantanamo” by Daphne Eviatar, an attorney for Human Rights First. Adds John Glaser of Antiwar.com:

There are now 3,000 detainees in Bagram...five times the amount there when Barack Obama took office. Many of them have not been charged, have seen no evidence against them and do not have the right to be represented by a lawyer, aren’t given fair trials, and the U.S. claims it is not even obligated to explain why these people are caged.

A U.S. special operations “black site” at Bagram features “sleep deprivation, holding detainees in cold cells, forced nudity, physical abuse, detaining individuals in isolation cells for longer than 30 days, and restricting the access of the International Committee of the Red Cross,” according to Jonathan Horowitz’s investigation for the Open Society Institute."


reason.com...

So much for the concept that Obama cannot tolerate harm coming to Muslims...but this also, obviously, flies in the face of the people who seem to believe he is a kinder and gentler...more peace loving POTUS.


edit on 1-9-2012 by mobiusmale because: added link



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join