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 charles1952
reply to post by rogerstigers
Dear rogerstigers,
Honestly, I am not trying to get too personal here, but I can hear the anger and frustration in your voice. I share that. But it may be that I didn't communicate my question properly. May I try again?
Congress approved the Iraq war, so even under a Ron Paul administration we would be going in. There was no way we would nuke the place, or use major, blockbuster weapons. With the "enemy" hiding among the civilians, there was no quick and easy solution available, although getting rid of Saddam solved one problem, there were others.
Would a President Paul be willing to fight a slug fest like Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.? And how would it be fought differently?
My own opinion, and I know very little, is that he would not have gone to war even if Congress authorized it. Whether that's a strength or weakness is yet to be determined.
With respect,
charles1952
Originally posted by The Sword
reply to post by popsmayhem
What evidence? Where?
This is Iraq all over again.
If you support a war in Iran, you are a FOOL and I could care less if you wish to go crying to a moderator about it.
Originally posted by popsmayhem
Well they are all ganging up on Paul now.. Paul never was a threat
now he is. So now they got a taste of blood and are on the attack.
Originally posted by Algernonsmouse
Originally posted by popsmayhem
Well they are all ganging up on Paul now.. Paul never was a threat
now he is. So now they got a taste of blood and are on the attack.
Can I suggest you Paulers stop trying to use that line of thinking right now before it backfires on you like it did on McCain?
See, so many ran around saying that they were just attacking because he was a threat. Then they attacked the opposition themselves.
Well, you see how that worked out.
Just some friendly advice.
JERUSALEM — The head of Israel’s intelligence agency says that a nuclear-armed Iran does not necessarily pose an existential threat to the Jewish state, according to Israeli ambassadors.
Mossad chief Tamir Pardo addressed a conclave of Israeli ambassadors in Jerusalem on Thursday, saying that Israel’s existence is not inevitably endangered by Iran acquiring an atomic weapon, even as Israel has tried to disrupt Iran’s nuclear program.
“What is the significance of the term ‘existential?’” Mr. Pardo was quoted as saying by several ambassadors. “If you said a nuclear bomb in Iranian hands was an ‘existential’ threat, that would mean that we would have to close up shop. That’s not the situation. The term is used too freely.”
However, Mr. Pardo’s comments echo those of his predecessor at Mossad, Meir Dagan, and of other former and current Israeli security officials.
Mr. Dagan had vigorously opposed an attack and expressed his position publicly after retiring earlier this year. Gabi Ashkenazi, former armed forces chief of staff, also reportedly opposed an attack.
Opponents to an attack plan say that Iran, as a rational state, would not launch a nuclear assault that would ensure a retaliatory Israeli strike on its cities, including holy sites.
Zeevi Farkash, Israel’s former military intelligence chief, has said that Iran’s main drive for acquiring atomic weapons is not for use against Israel but as a deterrent against U.S. intervention, in much the same way that nuclear-armed North Korea feels secure against a U.S. attack.
If I were Iran, I would probably also be looking for a nuke or something else at this point, what with as hard as the US has been beating the war drums for quite some time now.
It amazes me that people here bend over backwards to defend Iran, as if Iran were beyond political machinations or an agenda against Israel..
And it equally always amazes me that people will bend over backwards to defend the US and Israel, as if we were beyond political machinations or an agenda against Iran..
As if that changes the spirit of the threat. Wanting Israel 'wiped off the map' verses wanting Israel, or the "zionist regime" 'erased from the annuls of time', is the SAME Thing. ITS A THREAT TO ISRAELS EXISTENCE.
You like to appeal to Iran wanting the Israel regime occupying Jerusalem to vanish from history (more accurate translation)
but look at the mountain of hostile statements we've made against them, and how long we have been directly interfering with them,
and if you think I'm mistaking cause and effect
North Korea's GOT the nuke, and...we don't give them crap like we used to before they developed it.
they just invited the inspectors in the other week because we're breathing down their neck.
Who are these people who bend over backwards for Israel? 85% + of the posters here revile Israel and support Iran. Additionally, did I say that America doesn't engage in political games? Theres not a country on earth who doesn't do that! And THATS my point with regard to Iran. Even if America is taking advantage of Iran's nuclear ambitions, Iran has an interest in building a bomb, and this happens to be a threat to Israel.
As if that changes the spirit of the threat. Wanting Israel 'wiped off the map' verses wanting Israel, or the "zionist regime" 'erased from the annuls of time', is the SAME Thing. ITS A THREAT TO ISRAELS EXISTENCE.
Most of these threats are made in response to Iran's original threat against Israel, and its brazen pursuit of nuclear weapons despite signing the non-proliferation treaty.
Additionally, would you say Iran is better off today, as a theocracy, or under the Shah? Ron Paul likes to say this, but it doesn't make very much sense. Iranians were more free under the shah - Jews living in Iran had more freedoms, woman had more freedoms, Iran back then also maintained a good relationship with Israel (which is where they got most of their oil before the '79 revolution)....
You have been confusing cause with effect. The cause - Irans pursuit of nuclear energy, is the cause of America's supposed interest in toppling the Iranian government. If Iran wants America off their back, all Iran needs to do is end their nuclear program, and thus put to rest conspiracy theories of American imperialistic motives for pursuing Iran.
North Korea is an altogether different issue.
With Iran, were dealing with a RELIGIOUS regime, not an atheistic one. This makes their threats against Israel, the 'regime occupying Jerusalem', all the more serious. The only thing keeping Israels enemies from attacking Israel, from bombing its nuclear reactor in Dimona, is the fact that Israel has a nuclear bomb. If they were to get a bomb, Israels leverage would be lost.
It seems to me that supporters of Iran also, tacitly at least, support the demise of Israel.
They play cat and mouse games. Even the recent IAEA report was based on second hand inside information, and not on direct evidence, because Iran has hitherto refused IAEA inspectors from observing their nuclear program.. Why? Because they most likely have something to hide.
It's also thought that Iran has multiple facilities where they conduct research, and the ones of interest are underground, which IAEA inspectors are not allowed to inspect because Iran denies their existence.
Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by Praetorius
If I were Iran, I would probably also be looking for a nuke or something else at this point, what with as hard as the US has been beating the war drums for quite some time now.
You're confusing cause with effect.
They're a signee to the nuclear-non-proliferation treaty. That's international law. They're breaking the law, and it doesn't help that they're led by a fanatically religious regime which has stated on numerous occasions their desire to see the "zionist regime" destroyed.
If Iran wants the US off their back, simply end the program and prove by allowing (which they haven't up till now) international inspectors into the country.
It amazes me that people here bend over backwards to defend Iran, as if Iran were beyond political machinations or an agenda against Israel..