IRAN LIE same as IRAQ LIE

reply to post by phroziac

Iraq couldntve reached usvwith a nuke...neither could iran....

Sure bout that?

Any 2 bit dictator or jihadist can walk up the southern board virtually unchallenged, and people said they would never fly planes in to building either, or man walk on the moon etc.

Originally posted by gortex

Google can yield many results , not all of them true or factual .

Google yields only RESULTS.

The resulted report's legitimacy lays in the agency's credibility. Sites such as PressTV.ir and russian or china agencies are well known propaganda outlets, but many other independent news agencies are not and often easily cross-referenced for veracity.

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by jesiaha
On a logical standpoint, if you DO believe Iran is a threat and wants to ''wipe Israel off the map''

what good does it do to the people of Palestine

Irrelevant...

One has nothing to do with the other......

or anyone for that matter to blow it up with nukes...

...It makes no sense

Getting rid of Nukes makes perfect sense!

Just saying is all

The rationalization there is they would be marytr's for the cause to bring in the coming of the Mahdi.

Agreed get rid of nukes is ideal, but since when have we ever lived in an ideal world.

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by jesiaha
On a logical standpoint, if you DO believe Iran is a threat and wants to ''wipe Israel off the map''

what good does it do to the people of Palestine

Irrelevant...

One has nothing to do with the other......

or anyone for that matter to blow it up with nukes...

...It makes no sense

Getting rid of Nukes makes perfect sense!

Just saying is all

It makes sense of course to get rid of nukes but the whole demonizing of Iran doesn't

Originally posted by jesiaha
It makes sense of course to get rid of nukes but the whole demonizing of Iran doesn't

When the US is being exposed for our inappropriate activities is that considered as being demonized?

By the same token, When Iran is exposed why is it considered as being demonized--->

reply to post by neo96

Saying Wiki leaks is lying?

No I'm saying people read what they want into it .

A small group — mostly of the political right — has long maintained that there was more evidence of a major and modern WMD program than the American people were led to believe. A few Congressmen and Senators gravitated to the idea, but it was largely dismissed as conspiratorial hooey.

The WMD diehards will likely find some comfort in these newly-WikiLeaked documents. Skeptics will note that these relatively small WMD stockpiles were hardly the kind of grave danger that the Bush administration presented in the run-up to the war.
www.wired.com...

We know Iraq had chemical weapons in the past because the US sold them to the regime , but chemical weapons have a shelf life and most if not all of them had been destroyed by the time of the second Gulf war .

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by jesiaha
It makes sense of course to get rid of nukes but the whole demonizing of Iran doesn't

When the US is being exposed for our inappropriate activities is that considered as being demonized?

By the same token, When Iran is exposed why is it considered as being demonized--->

edit on 6-10-2012 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)

No one as a clean slate, why I find it to be hypocrisy to shift the focus on one country that has no record of aggression on the speculation that they are developping a nuke

Originally posted by jesiaha
No one as a clean slate

Agreed

why I find it to be hypocrisy to shift the focus on one country that has no record of aggression on the speculation that they are developping a nuke

Then you've exposed either your ignorance or agenda.

Iran has since the 1979 revolution has been very active in supplying and supporting certain covert groups...

reply to post by gortex


No.

What "we" all know is that a lot of countries sold chemical weapons, and deliever systems,chemical precursors to Iraq.

Anyone who is placing blame soley on the Us is not dealing with the facts, but pure dogma,

Then they need to talk about the guy who used them.

reply to post by jesiaha


it is not that they are going to invade Colorado, or even nuke us....

it is that they enthusiastically ally themselves with anyone opposed to our country.

I don't want to see their country in ruin any more than the next, but really they are a threat. Not directly like a formal military presence we must contest. They are in a position to give aid and comfort to our enemies.

We need to clean house. The fact is their regime is in power because we have created an artificial situation where they have a valid threat to their people perceived as the US´s invasion of their country. The trouble is we can't just walk away now since the resistance we all hoped would topple the dictatorship over there has been routed out along with all opposition and the dictatorship has solidified its validity as the sole power. They have made dangerous alliances with our traditional enemies and are actively looking to hurt us as a country.

We can't just ignore the infection we have made. Now it is a real problem and it is ours. We need to cure the hell we made in that country by giving validity to maniacs. We have to invade Iran and establish a friendly ruling power that is not looking to hurt US interests. Because that is what exists there now....justified or not.

Our people can not suffer either...justified or not. That translates into your kids, friends, parents, everyone. They would empower our enemies so that we would suffer....that is unacceptable.

reply to post by SLAYER69

Iran has since the 1979 revolution has been very active in supplying and supporting certain covert groups...

Unlike the US who supported the IRA for decades and funded the Mucha Hadin against the Soviets .
Seems to me like one rule for western countries and another for the others not in the club .

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by jesiaha
No one as a clean slate

Iran has since the 1979 revolution has been very active in supplying and supporting certain covert groups...

You're right but hey...who hasn't, seems to be a growing trend of doing things, our hands are as dirty in that matter

Originally posted by jesiaha
You're right but hey...who hasn't,

Thank you for being the first in a long line of ATS posters to be the first to talk openly

seems to be a growing trend of doing things, our hands are as dirty in that matter

I have no issues with your analogy

All told, 52% of Iraq's international chemical weapon equipment was of German origin. Around 21% of Iraq’s international chemical weapon equipment was French. About 100 tons of mustard gas also came from Brazil. The United Kingdom paid for a chlorine factory that was intended to be used for manufacturing mustard gas An Austrian company gave Iraq calutrons for enriching uranium. The nation also provided heat exchangers, tanks, condensers, and columns for the Iraqi chemical weapons infrastructure, 16% of the international sales. Singapore gave 4,515 tons of precursors for VX, sarin, tabun, and mustard gasses to Iraq. The Dutch gave 4,261 tons of precursors for sarin, tabun, mustard, and tear gasses to Iraq. Egypt gave 2,400 tons of tabun and sarin precursors to Iraq and 28,500 tons of weapons designed for carrying chemical munitions. India gave 2,343 tons of precursors to VX, tabun, Sarin, and mustard gasses. Luxemburg gave Iraq 650 tons of mustard gas precursors. Spain gave Iraq 57,500 munitions designed for carrying chemical weapons. In addition, they provided reactors, condensers, columns and tanks for Iraq’s chemical warfare program, 4.4% of the international sales. China provided 45,000 munitions designed for chemical warfare.

jarrarsupariver.blogspot.com...

Can they hear me now?

A lot of countries helped Saddam.

Just trying to comprehend the issue further and people's view also

Originally posted by gortex

Unlike the US who supported the IRA for decades and funded the Mucha Hadin against the Soviets .
Seems to me like one rule for western countries and another for the others not in the club .

You are failing to make the distinction between private and official support.
Come on, I expected more from an experienced poster such as yourself.

reply to post by neo96


I prefer this source as its more errr .. mainstream

The newspaper says a review of a large tranche of government documents reveals that the administrations of President Reagan and the first President Bush both authorized providing Iraq with intelligence and logistical support, and okayed the sale of dual use items — those with military and civilian applications — that included chemicals and germs, even anthrax and bubonic plague
www.cbsnews.com...

reply to post by gortex


YES

The US supplied Saddam. Is that all that report exposes? Yes, Who else or worse? Who was first with supplying Saddam?

Have you researched the Cold War contributing factors or are you just out to discuss the US's contribution?


"Then he put pen to paper"

reply to post by gortex


Nope prefer only just to condemn the US even tho it has been proven others aided Saddam as well.

Ciao.