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.
originally posted by: intrptr
Those actions were responses to what the West, i.e., US/EU/NATO did first. Did you turn a blind eye when the Americans gave Stingers to the Mujahideen in Afghanistan to shoot down Russian planes and helicopters?
originally posted by: intrptr
"Those" centrifuges aren't making bomb grade uranium. That doesn't stop the US government and its allies from making false accusations, though.
originally posted by: intrptr
Every time the US wants another inspection the IAEA comes up empty. Hint: The vilification of Iran is not about their imaginary Nuclear Weapons program.
originally posted by: intrptr
The world of make believe isn't in Iran. Its part of the very real western program to dominate the entire region.
originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: intrptr
There has never been an agreement by NATO to not expand. Repeating the lie over and over does not change the fact its a lie.
NATO - Russia relations: NATO Facts verse Russian Falsehoods
Russian claims that NATO promised not to enlarge
Russian officials claim that US and German officials promised in 1990 that NATO would not expand into Eastern and Central Europe, build military infrastructure near Russia’s borders or permanently deploy troops there.
No such pledge was made, and no evidence to back up Russia’s claims has ever been produced. Should such a promise have been made by NATO as such, it would have to have been as a formal, written decision by all NATO Allies. Furthermore, the consideration of enlarging NATO came years after German reunification. This issue was not yet on the agenda when Russia claims these promises were made.
Allegations about NATO pledging not to build infrastructure close to Russia are equally inaccurate. In the Founding Act, NATO reiterated “in the current and foreseeable security environment, the Alliance will carry out its collective defence and other missions by ensuring the necessary interoperability, integration, and capability for reinforcement rather than by additional permanent stationing of substantial combat forces. Accordingly, it will have to rely on adequate infrastructure commensurate with the above tasks. In this context, reinforcement may take place, when necessary, in the event of defence against a threat of aggression and missions in support of peace consistent with the United Nations Charter and the OSCE governing principles, as well as for exercises consistent with the adapted CFE Treaty, the provisions of the Vienna Document 1994 and mutually agreed transparency measures.”
NATO has indeed supported the upgrading of military infrastructure, such as air bases, in the countries which have joined the Alliance, commensurate with the requirements for reinforcement and exercises. However, the only combat forces permanently stationed on the territory of the new members are their own armed forces.
Even before the Ukraine crisis, the only routinely visible sign of Alliance forces in the new members were the NATO jets used in the Baltic States for the air policing mission. These minimal defensive assets cannot be described as substantial combat forces in the meaning of the Founding Act.
Since the crisis, NATO has taken steps to increase situational awareness and bolster the defences of our Eastern members. This, too, is entirely consistent with the Founding Act and is a direct result of Russia’s destabilizing military actions.
Finally, the Act also states, “Russia will exercise similar restraint in its conventional force deployments in Europe.” Russia’s aggression against Ukraine is a flagrant breach of this commitment, as is its unilateral suspension of compliance with the CFE Treaty.
Clinton and Yeltsin signed five separate joint statements.
In one, both presidents pledged to press their legislatures for ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention, a treaty banning the production or deployment of poison gas weapons that enters into force on April 29 but has not been ratified by the two countries with the biggest chemical arsenals.
(...)
The third statement dealt with the NATO-European security issue.
It said Yeltsin "underscored Russian concerns that NATO enlargement will lead to a potentially threatening buildup of permanently stationed combat forces of NATO near to Russia. President Clinton stressed that the Alliance contemplates nothing of the kind."
originally posted by: michaelbrux
Innocent? From my point of view its Americans that are defending themselves. American hasn't committed a single crime against anyone. I dare you to prove otherwise.
I won't be getting any help however and this will continue indefinitely until you all come to terms with reality.
you won't like what you discover, i'd bet.
originally posted by: Aazadan
As a US citizen would you be happy if China spent vast sums of money in the US in order to convince our leaders and businesses to write pro China trade policies? That is what we are doing to the Middle East. And you don't see why they are just a tad bit upset?
The 1996 United States campaign finance controversy was an alleged effort by the People's Republic of China to influence domestic American politics prior to and during the Clinton administration and also involved the fund-raising practices of the administration itself.
The journalists wrote that intelligence information had shown the Chinese Embassy in Washington, D.C. was used for coordinating contributions to the DNC[2] in violation of United States law forbidding non-American citizens or non-permanent residents from giving monetary donations to United States politicians and political parties. A Republican investigator of the controversy stated the Chinese plan targeted both presidential and congressional United States elections, while Democratic Senators said the evidence showed the Chinese targeted only congressional elections. The Chinese government denied all accusations.
Its about irons inability to conform with the IAEA treaty they signed
Once again yo0u trot out a youtube video from 2007 an d during the Bush administration.
Obama is president now and has not invade / attacked Iran now has he?
Your living in the past just as Putin does.
originally posted by: Malynn
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE
The fact that you think "liberals" are the cause of all America's problems only outlines the real problem: Americans. More interested in fighting each other than the real enemy.
originally posted by: michaelbrux
whatever happened to being badassed, is that popular anymore?
originally posted by: Aazadan
originally posted by: michaelbrux
Innocent? From my point of view its Americans that are defending themselves. American hasn't committed a single crime against anyone. I dare you to prove otherwise.
I won't be getting any help however and this will continue indefinitely until you all come to terms with reality.
you won't like what you discover, i'd bet.
From the perspective of those in the middle east such as ISIS the US spends it's vast sums of wealth to infiltrate their nations, and make them rule according to our wishes. We are using our money to cut off their sovereignty and meddle in their affairs. To make matters worse, they see it as a religious stuggle of Christians and Jews oppressing Muslims as well.
As a US citizen would you be happy if China spent vast sums of money in the US in order to convince our leaders and businesses to write pro China trade policies? That is what we are doing to the Middle East. And you don't see why they are just a tad bit upset?