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.

 

Strike on Iran still possible, U.S. tells Israel

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 31 2008 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Strike on Iran still possible, U.S. tells Israel


www.latimes.com

WASHINGTON -- Bush administration officials reassured Israel's defense minister this week that the United States has not abandoned all possibility of a military attack on Iran, despite widespread Israeli concern that Washington has begun softening its position toward Tehran.

In meetings Monday and Tuesday, administration officials told Defense Minister Ehud Barak that the option of attacking Iran over its nuclear program remains on the table, though U.S. officials are primarily seeking a diplomatic solution.
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
news.yahoo.com



posted on Jul, 31 2008 @ 11:24 AM
link   
No matter what I continue to hear about this subject it seems that the USA has the mind set of attacking Iran. Even though it was recently stated by 100+ countries in support for the Iran Nuclear program (link included), I wonder what will come of the threats of future mid-east war and instability and the coming elections in the United States?

www.latimes.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jul, 31 2008 @ 11:29 AM
link   
I'm so tired of the US being involved in the middle east. Cant we just let them handle their own problems? It's going to get to the point soon where if Iran tests a new pair of military binoculars Bush will try and get the UN to sanction them...



posted on Jul, 31 2008 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by wisefoolishness
 


Do you think that any action military wise might effect the coming elections? I have always wondered if the Bush Administration might try to pull a thing like that, and call a state of emergency and put off elections; can that really be done?
[edit for spelling]



[edit on 31-7-2008 by theability]



posted on Jul, 31 2008 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by theability
 


I suppose the elections could be "put off" if there was a strike on US soil very close to the time of the election. Many people think that if a military conflict started with Iran before the election that it would give John McCain an advantage in the election. Maybe it does, but lets just hope we dont have to find out.



posted on Jul, 31 2008 @ 12:39 PM
link   
I won't go into my whole Iran world-view right here (I have done so at length in other threads).

In a nutshell: Our situation with Iran is a joke. We are pretending that the intentions we assume Iran has for it's nuclear program is enough to openly discuss preemptive war on its facilities...and then use the threats Ahmadinejad throws around as further justification for show of force.

Ahmadinejad is constantly portrayed to us in the typical 'boogey-man' song and dance I am sure we are all quite used to by now. For what? For doing the same thing we are constantly doing to them?

Hell, we are openly discussing/promoting preemptive military strikes within Iran and all our administration and media can feed us is, "They want to build nuclear weapons. They say they don't we say they do" and "They make threats against Isreal."

Russia threatened to aim it's very real nuclear warheads at Europian cities. It may be international chest beating and smoke blowing, but so this pissing contest with Iran.

One of those two pose an actual threat, yet the other gets our drums of war a'beating.

Oh ****, I got into longwinded mode again.



posted on Jul, 31 2008 @ 01:04 PM
link   
Spines I couldn't agree with you anymore. I wonder if anyone will see the light of this situation before things have gone crossed the point of no return?

The war drum has been beating since WWII and our use of nuclear weapons. It is the USA the runs around and pushes those that don't agree with America's stance.



posted on Jul, 31 2008 @ 01:11 PM
link   
Their waiting for Olmert to be out of the picture. I have this feeling he is opposed to the ideal of attacking Iran.

Which is why he is being removed to be replaced with someone who would be willing to lead their nation into the next step.

That being an attack on Iran.

Wait for Israel to clean house, then all hell will break loose in the middle east.



posted on Jul, 31 2008 @ 01:15 PM
link   
Would America leave Iran alone for the loveof god...........



posted on Jul, 31 2008 @ 02:37 PM
link   
I've been commenting in Iran prediction threads since last year and still nobody can seem to reach a consensus about what's going to happen.

I'm getting the feeling though America is starting ease off the Big Red Button and actually exploring diplomatic means of resolution.
Maybe it's the crisis in Iraq.
Maybe it's Bush low opinion polls.
Maybe it's soaring cost of energy.
Maybe it's the economy sliding downwards.

Maybe all of the above?

Whatever it is, I'll say it again though, Iran has every single right to develop Nuclear Power.

There are so many stupid double standards that exist within the Nuclear Country Club it beggars belief why Iran is being made an example of.

Israel, India & Pakistan all have confirmed Nuclear weapons. They are all engaged in low-intensity conflicts that could quite easily escalate into all-out war.
They've all threatened to use Nuclear weapons as an offensive measure if they got to a certain point.

Yet here's Iran. One of the most peaceful nations in the Middle East (regarding warfare), and everyone is on their back demanding they halt their Nuclear programme completely.

Iran has yet to be conclusively linked to the mess in Iraq. Iran has been fairly forthcoming with IAEA inspectors considering the fact they accused Iran without a single shred of proof.
I wouldn't open the door to my house if somebody claimed there were drugs in here either.

America themselves are the biggest hypocrites. Telling Iran they can't develop Nuclear Power for military or civilian purposes.

Yet how did the US develop it's own Nuclear programme?
Rumours of a German one in development during WW2 sparked the Manhattan Project.
They developed the A-Bomb as defensive measure. They would do the same thing in Iran's case, who is rapidly being shoved against the wall.


I think the more and more the UN, Europe, the US and the IAEA pressure Iran and start to back them into a corner the less and less cooperative they will become to the point where they will snap.

You keep poking someone with a stick and one day their just going to take that stick and beat your ass with it.

That's the real danger here. Provoking Iran, and with Bush at the helm, foaming at the mouth for more oil revenue, it could easily happen.

They just need to cut Ahmadinejad some slack, ease up, and give Iran some time.
These two week deadlines and all these sanction threats are just ridiculous.

NO ONE HAS PROVED ANYTHING regarding Iran's nuclear programme.
Either present the hard cold facts or take a friggin' hike.


[edit on 31/7/08 by The Godfather of Conspira]



posted on Jul, 31 2008 @ 03:05 PM
link   


NO ONE HAS PROVED ANYTHING regarding Iran's nuclear programme.

Either present the hard cold facts or take a friggin' hike.




I think this is the best quote I have heard yet!



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join