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.
Why a war with Iran is necessary should talking fail.
page: 4share:
Iran has signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and you still criticise them, Israel refuses to sign it, and refuses to let the IAEA monitor
them, and they are peaceful.
reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter
So wait a minute. I debated you all night last night trying to get you to understand why we, the U.S., as a country do what we do. And no matter what you say, "war is bad, war is wrong", or you've lived in a war zone and wouldn't wish that upon anyone. Seriously? I talked with about that from 1:00 am until 6:00 am and couldn't get through to you. But the minute someone says Russia should nuke or biologically attack us, then it's okay?
WOW!!! You must really have it bad for America. Do you even realize what you've been saying and what your saying now?
So wait a minute. I debated you all night last night trying to get you to understand why we, the U.S., as a country do what we do. And no matter what you say, "war is bad, war is wrong", or you've lived in a war zone and wouldn't wish that upon anyone. Seriously? I talked with about that from 1:00 am until 6:00 am and couldn't get through to you. But the minute someone says Russia should nuke or biologically attack us, then it's okay?
WOW!!! You must really have it bad for America. Do you even realize what you've been saying and what your saying now?
Originally posted by Cosmic4life
Originally posted by J.Son79
The U.S. never used nuclear weapons in anger.
Erm..... Nagasaki...Hiroshima..
Cosmic..
That was to STOP world war II and bring peace. The allies tried to reason with Japan 13 days before the first bomb fell. We begged and pleaded them to surrender. The Japanese didn't believe in it. The still didn't surrender after the first bomb. They went silent for 3 more days. Then when the 2nd bomb dropped, they wised up and surrendered immediately. This saved millions of Japanese and American lives. It was either that, or ground invasion. Japan had plenty of chances to surrender but didn't.
I'd say the decision to drop those bombs was well thought out during that time and was a wise decision made by the allies to bring peace to the world...far from an angry decision i'd say.
Iran doesn't need nuclear weapons to fulfill their ultimate war plans... IMO
All of this concern is irrelevant at this point in time... Which would be more costly.... Creating a uranium enrichment program, achieving the level of enrichment required to have the material (in sufficient quantities) to mass produce nuclear weapons (this could be in the 10s or hundreds of billions of dollars) or to fund research into chemical and bio-weapons research programs and create equally effective and dangerous weapons?
Perhaps doing both, one covertly, but known to be going on, the other... unknown... Nukes as a deterrent, defensive, and retaliatory weapons system only, chemical/bio-weapons as offensive weapons capabilities for use in proxy "terrorist" attacks... A terror supporting regime could fund their own research into cooking up a super-bug or worse, and eventually supply it to terrorists, or infect them (a "suicide bioterrorist") and have them spread that infection among a targeted population. Of course also, to make such a weapon a good alternative would be to have an exclusive vaccine/antidote/cure developed along with the "weapon"
Evil will find a way....
Nah, no way that could possibly be happening... Right?
As long as all sides are talking, and forceful diplomatic efforts are active with a significant force projection in the region... People aren't being killed, and Iran has no justification or reason to retaliate.
I say, let this stalemate continue, and let the true evil grow impatient and ultimately provoke war. (whichever side that is)
Why rush the inevitable?
All of this concern is irrelevant at this point in time... Which would be more costly.... Creating a uranium enrichment program, achieving the level of enrichment required to have the material (in sufficient quantities) to mass produce nuclear weapons (this could be in the 10s or hundreds of billions of dollars) or to fund research into chemical and bio-weapons research programs and create equally effective and dangerous weapons?
Perhaps doing both, one covertly, but known to be going on, the other... unknown... Nukes as a deterrent, defensive, and retaliatory weapons system only, chemical/bio-weapons as offensive weapons capabilities for use in proxy "terrorist" attacks... A terror supporting regime could fund their own research into cooking up a super-bug or worse, and eventually supply it to terrorists, or infect them (a "suicide bioterrorist") and have them spread that infection among a targeted population. Of course also, to make such a weapon a good alternative would be to have an exclusive vaccine/antidote/cure developed along with the "weapon"
Evil will find a way....
Nah, no way that could possibly be happening... Right?
As long as all sides are talking, and forceful diplomatic efforts are active with a significant force projection in the region... People aren't being killed, and Iran has no justification or reason to retaliate.
I say, let this stalemate continue, and let the true evil grow impatient and ultimately provoke war. (whichever side that is)
Why rush the inevitable?
edit on 22-1-2012 by Fractured.Facade because: (no reason given)
I sure hope that all you hawks that are for preemptive war aren't Christians. Cause if you are, your a grade A hypocrite! You should get up, go look
in the mirror and ask yourself what would Jesus do?
Originally posted by mkgandhas
reply to post by seagull
a moderator is talking this....
disgusting....
IF americans think like this,I hope Russia nukes and wages biological and thermonuclear genocide and eradicates the americans from this planet. We don't need genocidal american warmongers.
yes...
for a moment I thought I was the only one who thinks the opening post is completely well done piece of propaganda.
"Scary Anti-Life Wing of Iran Elite Revolutionary Guard Extremist Islamist"
Oh yeah.
Originally posted by xpert11
Iran's Nuclear Program is like the German airlines of the 30's that ended up dropping bombs on people. When Israel has failed to follow a pre-emptive military doctrine they have nearly been wiped out. China is India natural enemy more on that another time.
and the blah blah blah and the blah blah blah...
Now any western leader with half a brain couldn't let the war end until the regime is gone and buried.
On behalf of the allied military personal that would die in any conflict what ever punishment the enemy takes doesn't bother me in the slightest. As General Sherman would have put it " War is hell and the more we make it so the sooner it ends." I was unable to source the extract quote.
I thought we were denying ignorance not spreading it?!
shame on all brainwashed sheep!
reply to post by eagleeye2
Where did I say they couldn't be? I said if all else, which means talking, fails, if it does; military action will become necessary.
Where are you people getting this stupid notion that I'm in favor of a war with Iran? Christ on a flippin' crutch people, I'd just as soon the region be left alone to stew in its own blood soaked juices... Unfortunately, the real world doesn't work that way.
Iran has a chance to step away in the next few years from this stupid attempt to acquire nuclear weapons. No fuss, no muss, no war. Do you think I'll actually be disappointed? If so, that says more about you lot, then it ever will about me.
This discussion was supposed to be about options... Not accusation levied against me for my imagined warmongering, or sheeplism... But if y'all want to continue on in this vein, do feel free to do so.
Where did I say they couldn't be? I said if all else, which means talking, fails, if it does; military action will become necessary.
Where are you people getting this stupid notion that I'm in favor of a war with Iran? Christ on a flippin' crutch people, I'd just as soon the region be left alone to stew in its own blood soaked juices... Unfortunately, the real world doesn't work that way.
Iran has a chance to step away in the next few years from this stupid attempt to acquire nuclear weapons. No fuss, no muss, no war. Do you think I'll actually be disappointed? If so, that says more about you lot, then it ever will about me.
This discussion was supposed to be about options... Not accusation levied against me for my imagined warmongering, or sheeplism... But if y'all want to continue on in this vein, do feel free to do so.
why isn't it necessary to invade china, russia, n.korea, france, england etc.
they all have nuclear weapons. russia was a greater threat than iran will ever hope or can be.
a nuclear weapon is basically your get out of an invasion free card. every country should have one. then there will be peace.
they all have nuclear weapons. russia was a greater threat than iran will ever hope or can be.
a nuclear weapon is basically your get out of an invasion free card. every country should have one. then there will be peace.
Originally posted by J.Son79
So, don't just think in terms of Iran launching nukes at people. It's the power grab that would be ripe for the taking for Iran. Think of all the middle eastern resources and how the world currently operates day to day and depends on them. Iran would be in control of all of that.
(no reason given)
Ahh, so there it is in the nut shell.
It is not about any higher moral good but about control and power for the thieves in Washington and the cronies their in bed with.
It is better for the thieves here in the US to control the Middle East resources than for their own people to benefit from it.
I'll bet your one of those that call those receiving welfare thieves, but have no problem when our criminals in charge do it to other countries.
Talk about utter satanic thieving cockroaches that I hope get in the receiving end of a nuke.
Originally posted by randomname
why isn't it necessary to invade china, russia, n.korea, france, england etc.
they all have nuclear weapons. russia was a greater threat than iran will ever hope or can be.
a nuclear weapon is basically your get out of an invasion free card. every country should have one. then there will be peace.
No, a nuclear weapon is not a get out of an invasion free card. Yes Russia was during the Cold War and look what almost happened. The reason it's not necessary to invade other nations you named is because they all are currently working with everyone else...unlike Iran. Besides North Korea. North Korea is no one to worry about at the moment. They have no real goods, services or resources that's important to the way of the world.
A nuclear capable Iran will destabilize the middle east. A region that all the other nations you named above strongly depend on. This is why Iran doesn't need nukes. Every nation depends on the middle east and it's resources. The world can't afford to let that happen.
France, U.k. etc acquired nukes in case the Cold War heated up. Russia's first targets would have been European nations and those nations needed a means to protect themselves. No one on the other hand is threatening to nuke Iran. Israel? No, they've had nukes for 50 years and never once threatened Iran with nuclear war, but only to dismantle their power plants.
Yep, America my country is the problem, and like Hitler's Germany, many citizens there as here, are too stupid or blind to see were following in the
same footsteps, invading country after country for the thieves in Washington.
Originally posted by mkgandhas
reply to post by seagull
a moderator is talking this....
disgusting....
IF americans think like this,I hope Russia nukes and wages biological and thermonuclear genocide and eradicates the americans from this planet. We don't need genocidal american warmongers.
Originally posted by seagull
reply to post by eagleeye2
Iran has a chance to step away in the next few years from this stupid attempt to acquire nuclear weapons. No fuss, no muss, no war. Do you think I'll actually be disappointed? If so, that says more about you lot, then it ever will about me.
So who the **** are you or the American government or NATO or UN to say who can and who cannot use a Nuclear Power?
This standpoint will be the end of USA empire eventually.
Originally posted by jacobe001
Originally posted by J.Son79
So, don't just think in terms of Iran launching nukes at people. It's the power grab that would be ripe for the taking for Iran. Think of all the middle eastern resources and how the world currently operates day to day and depends on them. Iran would be in control of all of that.
Ahh, so there it is in the nut shell.
It is not about any higher moral good but about control and power for the thieves in Washington and the cronies their in bed with.
It is better for the thieves here in the US to control the Middle East resources than for their own people to benefit from it.
I'll bet your one of those that call those receiving welfare thieves, but have no problem when our criminals in charge do it to other countries.
Talk about utter satanic thieving cockroaches that I hope get in the receiving end of a nuke.
No, actually i'm not that way at all. I'm sorry you feel that way about me. It has NOTHING to do with power for people in Washington. If that was the case, wouldn't we have just grabbed that up a long time ago? I mean seriously?
The U.S. and other nations, are worried about oil interests and the destabilization in the region. Destabilization of those we do business with. That's why were not INVADING Iran for their oil. We are simply going to strike their nuclear power plants and disable that capability. That way they can't attempt to control those nations whom we and other nations do business with.
Why does everyone look at the U.S. with so much hatred and having blind motives? It's really not the way it seems. The U.S. has to think of it's future, it's allies and their future, and so on and so on. This is strategy and the people in the upper echelon's of our government are very good strategists.
But seriously, just because you don't understand something completely or understand someone's motives, you really shouldn't call them "Satanic Cockroaches".
edit on 1/23/2012 by 12m8keall2c because: fixed quote tags
reply to post by randomname
russia because its a death plan to invade them (napoleon,hitler,etc) i think the last successfull conqueror of russia was gengis khan,China because even with out nuclear weapons invading them would be madness due to the population and lack of transportation options etc and land wars in asia are ill advised ,North korea may some day be invaded but the fact they have enough artillery to level their closest enemy's capitol city (massive civvilan casualties)and quite a large army themselves,france eh i dont think they will get invaded due to the close ties most of western Europe now has would be of major concern plus they have at least a decent navy same goes for england but with probably more allies then France would have sure their nuclear weapons do not hurt the equation but they are not the primary factors look at switzerland they dont have nukes and no one screws with them,the vatican dosent have nukes and i dont think they are in danger of an invasion and thanks directly to the usa(not planned that way im sure) the monroe doctorine keeps most of latin america safe from invasion (infighting seems to be allowed and some times incouraged) so nukes arent the only factor in why invading a country is a bad idea
russia because its a death plan to invade them (napoleon,hitler,etc) i think the last successfull conqueror of russia was gengis khan,China because even with out nuclear weapons invading them would be madness due to the population and lack of transportation options etc and land wars in asia are ill advised ,North korea may some day be invaded but the fact they have enough artillery to level their closest enemy's capitol city (massive civvilan casualties)and quite a large army themselves,france eh i dont think they will get invaded due to the close ties most of western Europe now has would be of major concern plus they have at least a decent navy same goes for england but with probably more allies then France would have sure their nuclear weapons do not hurt the equation but they are not the primary factors look at switzerland they dont have nukes and no one screws with them,the vatican dosent have nukes and i dont think they are in danger of an invasion and thanks directly to the usa(not planned that way im sure) the monroe doctorine keeps most of latin america safe from invasion (infighting seems to be allowed and some times incouraged) so nukes arent the only factor in why invading a country is a bad idea
reply to post by seagull
They aren't too many options so far. Iran can continue on or stop. The US seems hell bent on making them stop. I personally don't see a problem with them having a nuke (if that's what they are going for), but I don't see the proof yet so all it appears to be so far (from the facts, not conjecture) is that they are using the enriched uranium for their power plants and for medical purposes.
I am interested in what you think will be the final outcome and why.
This discussion was supposed to be about options... Not accusation levied against me for my imagined warmongering, or sheeplism... But if y'all want to continue on in this vein, do feel free to do so.
They aren't too many options so far. Iran can continue on or stop. The US seems hell bent on making them stop. I personally don't see a problem with them having a nuke (if that's what they are going for), but I don't see the proof yet so all it appears to be so far (from the facts, not conjecture) is that they are using the enriched uranium for their power plants and for medical purposes.
I am interested in what you think will be the final outcome and why.
A nuclear capable Iran will destabilize the middle east. A region that all the other nations you named above strongly depend on. This is why Iran doesn't need nukes. Every nation depends on the middle east and it's resources. The world can't afford to let that happen.
Finally I see someone making some sense here. Bravo.
If we could get to the bottom of the story on "if talks fail" hopefully they wouldn't use Bushes playbook, you know the one from Iraq..and the
WMD's..I really lost respect for General Powell on those shenanigans with his speech to the UN..the problem is we don't know who to trust..today it
just seems like war is a money maker for some people..THIS time I want an independent source who has NO dog in the fight to tell me what's really
going on..
I wonder if that's possible..Cheers Coco
I wonder if that's possible..Cheers Coco
reply to post by itscocobaby
That's hard to do considering Iran will not let anybody in to see what's really going on. The obvious question is if they are really creating energy and not bombs, then why the secrecy?
That's hard to do considering Iran will not let anybody in to see what's really going on. The obvious question is if they are really creating energy and not bombs, then why the secrecy?
Originally posted by nyk537
A nuclear capable Iran will destabilize the middle east. A region that all the other nations you named above strongly depend on. This is why Iran doesn't need nukes. Every nation depends on the middle east and it's resources. The world can't afford to let that happen.
Finally I see someone making some sense here. Bravo.
Perhaps you should check out this thread. More importantly, this post from a fellow mod. Why do you think a nuclear capable Iran will destabilize the middle east? They sure as hell won't use it against Israel, so who would they attack? IF they are working on one, it will be for a deterrent, not for attacking, that would be suicide, and if they blew up their holy place, do you think they will get to Heaven(or their equivalent)?
To destabilize the middle east you need a military bully in there to make things "right" for them. Let Iran deal with Iran's problems and Israel deal with their own problems. You would have all the oil you need if your POTUS didn't nix the Canadian pipeline deal.
There have been a lot of people making sense on here, you just have to pay attention to them.
edit on 22-1-2012 by superman2012 because: said
op instead of mod