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.

 

Iran Claims 'The Greatest Deterrent'

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 12:55 AM
link   
I think Bush would opt for the second option...

As many have pointed out.. he has a large ego, tons of pride, and I just dont see him letting us outright loose a military conflict. If he can stop it I mean.




posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 01:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by MKULTRA
drbryankkruta:

Your prose is curiously phrased and punctuated-- almost intentionally so?


Just as a matter of curiosity I would ask what you where intending here not as a matter of offense but understanding , could you elaberate?


Originally posted by MKULTRA
Also I see no reference to the air or space programs which are active in all of the affected areas.


The mention of satelite being able to expose the presence of nuke power sources derives from report of nigh and day operation in which sattelile photos have been eyeing nuke installation looking for that mysterious glow the goverment explains to us as being nuke base energy signature, Does that cover what you were saying here or am I lost in my madness again.
as for Iraq and Saudi Arabia, and Afthganistan there are operations by pilotless drones day and night that have been going on since Iraq 1 that is where taliban intelegence has be most effectively gathered by that means and by high level intel flights, its nothing new just basic recon.



Originally posted by MKULTRA
The Tsunami group ARE armed.. and you and I both know that the landmass of Indonesia is much more negotiable than Japan, if ever the need arose to pounce that group.


In reports I have viewed the goverments of the tsunami countries refused the following
1) the establishment of any base is prohibited on their soil an the battle groups personell while not either running sorties or at night must return to their ships and remain there till operations progress again
2)no soldier will carry fire arms when on the soil of the country in question the off shore vessels are the only armed personell no live ammo is to be carried on air ships running sorties either
3)the immediate and complete with drawl of all US military forces as soon as they drop their last load of supplies we are not to linger around any longer than absolutely needed.


originally posted by MKULTRA
Regarding Iran, I wonder if there is some form of conditioning being employed in the media-- perhaps preparing the population for another preemptive attack? The skies over Iran have not been calm as of late. The nuclear question is a separate issue that becomes relevant in terms of risk assessment.


Oh most definately there is no dought that this is building in the media much like the return to Iraq, it was and continues to be a tactic used by this administration to soften the blow of war, but this is not a new tool this has been used before by other administrations, it is just so obvious now that we are realizing this build up is present that we don't seem to respond negatively to it anymore till its to late and we are stuck in a war we have to win or die in effort to win, its nam syndrom gone amuk and its just going to keep happening.



[edit on 19/1/2005 by drbryankkruta]



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 01:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
Iran's "Greatest Deterrent" may just in fact be the simplest deterrent of all: a vicious defense that involves every man, woman, and child in Iran.

The biggest concern for any war with Iran is the insane nationalism that would unite Persians against the U.S. in case of war. In other words, NOBODY, Persian or British, is gonna help or support the U.S. in a war with Iran. They have stated they can and will hold off a U.S. invasion and frankly, I believe them. It doesn't take any special weapons. Just take every person in Iran, get them on their feet, and they'll fight back. All hell will break loose.

It'll get to the point where the only option for the U.S. is to either withdraw or annihilate Iran. Tough choice. What Would Bush Do?




I am leaning that way to but I see North Korea coming in and China as well if not in full force,, but as rapid response teams of about 150 to 250 thousand troops and the required tank and helos but I dont think the support will last if out battlegroup is moved from their current southern Asia aid location to a more direct line of fire with China and North Korea, and Russia is to weak to go into the defense of their allies in Iran the Ukraine issue is keeping them busy right now.



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 02:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xerrog
I think Bush would opt for the second option...

As many have pointed out.. he has a large ego, tons of pride, and I just dont see him letting us outright loose a military conflict. If he can stop it I mean.



So are you in the belief Bush will muster the additional resources by the full scale draft or premtive strike?

If he premtive strikes we will loose to the counter attack and in turn loose the last shread of credability we have in the world, which is not much right now.

I do however see an increased effort to back door draft to obtain atleast 100,000 for the first muster, to enter and start operations. Then I see a public out cry about our boys not having enough help there by getting the support for a full draft, however do we think if we pull the Tsunami battlegroup , our current reserves, about 1/3 of Iraq personel, and 1/3 to all Afthgan and Saudi area troops can we hold it for six to 8 weeks to train the draftees enough to have basic combat skills?



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 02:47 AM
link   
Personally I think it will start with Air Raids on suspected nuclear targets. (which will be on the news) Also night raids on anti-air and other ground military targets. (which probably wouldnt be on the news) During this period they will shift our forces to be ready for a strike from Iran and to possibly put a ground offensive under way if needed.

Iran then retaliates in some way against troops either in Iraq or Afghanistan.

This gets Bush everything he needs for the public to back a full war in Iran. Which I beleive we will use mainly air-power for the first month or so, and use ground forces as a defensive force.

By the time ground troops have to engage offensively its quite possible the draft could already be in place. All it would take are a few fighters shot down and pilots captured.

[edit on 19-1-2005 by Xerrog]



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 03:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xerrog
Personally I think it will start with Air Raids on suspected nuclear targets. (which will be on the news) Also night raids on anti-air and other ground military targets. (which probably wouldnt be on the news) During this period they will shift our forces to be ready for a strike from Iran and to possibly put a ground offensive under way if needed.

Iran then retaliates in some way against troops either in Iraq or Afghanistan.

This gets Bush everything he needs for the public to back a full war in Iran. Which I beleive we will use mainly air-power for the first month or so, and use ground forces as a defensive force.

By the time ground troops have to engage offensively its quite possible the draft could already be in place. All it would take are a few fighters shot down and pilots captured.

[edit on 19-1-2005 by Xerrog]



Well I agree with most of this except the fact we wont be able to fight this war with the effectiveness we need to at our present level of readiness we will have to back door and full scale draft in major effort. We are going to see a new world war axis type enemy develope those three countries Iran North Korea and China have all opened expressed their support for one another and their willingness to defend each other and the way I see it like I said the allies will send a very small compliment of personell till we are beaten down some and then your are going to see massive build ups and a conversion in tactics to assure we dont play the game by our rules again, they want in a sick and twisted way to bring about change they want us to be a participant not a leader ing the greater world scope, and they have a half a billion troops in China alone ready to help see we fall into those lines of equal not superior status. We are no more superior to anyone in the workd as they are to us we are all in this game and have to share the toys equally and the US policy is to clone people into their methodology and force them to follow the US lead , and that's fixin to kick our butts.



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 05:34 AM
link   
Surgical Airstrikes : possibly, could be effective....

Ground invasion : very risky, could blow up in your face, will the sji'ites in iraq just sit still and watch while american troops fight in Iran ? What will the The sunni insurgants, the Hizbollah and the Syrians do, Will the iranians from the start use insurgance/urban warfare instead of meeting the usa army in the open field? Will Israel/China/Russia step in ?

Many considerations, it could either become one of the most memorable victories or one of the most memorable disasters in american history.


[edit on 19-1-2005 by Countermeasures]



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 06:08 AM
link   
If I remember right, and I do, the all time greatest "Christian" Jimmy Carter was president when this war on america began. You can't blame Bush 41, or 43 , or Regan. Iran declared war on the US and the following article provides a nice timeline of the events. Iran is now and always has been the single originator of terror against the US.


"America's war on terrorism did not begin in September 2001. It began in November 1979.

That was shortly after Ayatollah Khomeini had seized power in Iran, riding the slogan "Death to America" - and sure enough, the attacks on Americans soon began. In November 1979, a militant Islamic mob took over the U.S. embassy in Tehran, the Iranian capital, and held 52 Americans hostage for the next 444 days.

The rescue team sent to free those hostages in April 1980 suffered eight fatalities, making them the first of militant Islam's many American casualties. Others included:

April 1983: 63 dead at the U.S. embassy in Beirut.

October 1983: 241 dead at the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut.

December 1983: five dead at the U.S. embassy in Kuwait.

January 1984: the president of the American University of Beirut killed.

April 1984: 18 dead near a U.S. airbase in Spain.

September 1984: 16 dead at the U.S. embassy in Beirut (again).

December 1984: Two dead on a plane hijacked to Tehran.

June 1985: One dead on a plane hijacked to Beirut.

After a let-up, the attacks then restarted: Five and 19 dead in Saudi Arabia in 1995 and 1996, 224 dead at the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in August 1998 and 17 dead on the USS Cole in Yemen in October 2000.

Simultaneously, the murderous assault of militant Islam also took place on U.S. soil:

July 1980: an Iranian dissident killed in the Washington, D.C. area.

August 1983: a leader of the Ahmadiyya sect of Islam killed in Canton, Mich.

August 1984: three Indians killed in a suburb of Tacoma, Wash.

September 1986: a doctor killed in Augusta, Ga.

January 1990: an Egyptian freethinker killed in Tucson, Ariz.

November 1990: a Jewish leader killed in New York.

February 1991: an Egyptian Islamist killed in New York.

January 1993: two CIA staff killed outside agency headquarters in Langley, Va.

February 1993: Six people killed at the World Trade Center.

March 1994: an Orthodox Jewish boy killed on the Brooklyn Bridge.

February 1997: a Danish tourist killed on the Empire State building.

October 1999: 217 passengers killed on an EgyptAir flight near New York City.

In all, 800 persons lost their lives in the course of attacks by militant Islam on Americans before September 2001 - more than killed by any other enemy since the Vietnam War. (Further, this listing does not include the dozens more Americans in Israel killed by militant Islamic terrorists.)

And yet, these murders hardly registered. Only with the events of a year ago did Americans finally realize that "Death to America" truly is the battle cry of this era's most dangerous foe, militant Islam.

In retrospect, the mistake began when Iranians assaulted the U.S. embassy in Tehran and met with no resistance.

Interestingly, a Marine sergeant present at the embassy that fateful day in November 1979 agrees with this assessment. As the militant Islamic mob invaded the embassy, Rodney V. Sickmann followed orders and protected neither himself nor the embassy. As a result, he was taken hostage and lived to tell the tale. (He now works for Anheuser-Busch.)

In retrospect, he believes that passivity was a mistake. The Marines should have done their assigned duty, even if it cost their lives. "Had we opened fire on them, maybe we would only have lasted an hour." But had they done that, they "could have changed history."

Standing their ground would have sent a powerful signal that the United States of America cannot be attacked with impunity. In contrast, the embassy's surrender sent the opposite signal - that it's open season on Americans. "If you look back, it started in 1979; it's just escalated," Sickmann correctly concludes. "

www.danielpipes.org...



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 06:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Countermeasures
Surgical Airstrikes : possibly, could be effective....

Ground invasion : very risky, could blow up in your face, will the sji'ites in iraq just sit still and watch while american troops fight in Iran ? What will the The sunni insurgants, the Hizbollah and the Syrians do, Will the iranians from the start use insurgance/urban warfare instead of meeting the usa army in the open field? Will Israel/China/Russia step in ?

Many considerations, it could either become one of the most memorable victories or one of the most memorable disasters in american history.


[edit on 19-1-2005 by Countermeasures]




I agree and I fear the latter the worst disaster is more likely and lets not forget N Korea as they themselves are in the same nuke boat with the US as Iran is now, given they have mutual desires, one that they wouldnt mind handing the US thier worst defeat ever, buth they are both wanting full functioning and capable nuke defenses, they will jump in with Iran on this one for sure.



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 06:22 AM
link   
The US must lay waste to the entire country of Iran. No "surgical" strikes or any other PC approach to this war. Anything less than complete destruction will only invite more terrorisim.

The fanatical japanese military even when faced with 2 nuclear devestations still wanted to continue the war.

Surgical strikes will only provide fuel for the militant islamo-cowards.

If the US does attack it must be a complete "vaporization" effort.

Complete "meltdown" is the only way to deter terror. Harbor terrorist and loose your entire country to a glass factory.

[edit on 19-1-2005 by DrHoracid]



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 06:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrHoracid
The US must lay waste to the entire country of Iran. No "surgical" strikes or any other PC approach to this war. Anything less than complete destruction will only invite more terrorisim.

The fanatical japanese military even when faced with 2 nuclear devestations still wanted to continue the war.

Surgical strikes will only provide fuel for the militant islamo-cowards.

If the US does attack it must be a complete "vaporization" effort.

Complete "meltdown" is the only way to deter terror. Harbor terrorist and loose your entire country to a glass factory.

[edit on 19-1-2005 by DrHoracid]







Okay we have talked often via personal u2u's but I have to respectfully say I can't ride this bus with you, I will say that is the only sure way Iran wont be a threat but insurgents just move around so the cause doesnt really warrent the response as you put it the only cause that would be achieved is genocide. Sorry my friend I cant go with that even to save our soldiers lives.



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 07:05 AM
link   
I admire your faith. But attacking Iran with other than complete cleanzing would be useless. They will gain nukes, they will use them against Israel, and there will be armageddon.

If we do not attack Iran.........They will gain nukes, they will use them against Israel, and there will be armageddon.

If we try surgical attacks.........They will gain nukes, they will use them against Israel, and there will be armageddon.

What is the central theme here???????????

I do wish there was no war, no nukes, no terror, no death period. When Christ returns there will be few left standing, no matter what is said here.

Iran is being led by satan through Islam.



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 07:18 AM
link   
I think a key factor being overlooked here is the threat Iranian hypersonic cruise missles pose to any force projection by the American fleet. Sunburns and Onyxes sink ships, though people will argue with this, the impact from a single DUMMY warhead could sink a carrier. The reason is speed. Remember when the Flash used to punch a bad guy? The Sunburn is like the flash, flying at mach 2.9 I believe, and when it hits, it hurts considerably. Iran might have nuke equipped Sunburns on loan from Russia (with love), but it's a moot point. Iran doesn't need nukes to blackmail Washington. Washington protects its carriers like a mother bear protects her cubs. Iran knows that Washington needs the fleet intact to prove its 'superiority' and maintain troop support for the many blossoming wars in the Middle East. I don't know what Iranian Anti-Aircraft defenses are like, but I presume they are substandard, because their focus has classically been on artillery. I'm not ruling out the possibility that a war with Iran is possible, but I think we need to ask and answer the question, wouldn't that be the same thing as a war with Russia? Do we really want a war with Russia, with or without nukes?

So, in closing, Iran may be speaking about 1. Their Carrier sinking missles 2. Their alliance with Russia 3. (In my mind the least possible) Actual manufacture or possession of WMD



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 07:18 AM
link   
Dr this is just insane. It's the 'Hitler arguement'. Genocide now for a better future. ......and you want to label someone else as under the influence of 'satan'!


You would become the mass murderer you claim to want to protect your own from.

In doing so you would guarantee your country permanent pariah status and the loathing of your children for generations.

Is there an amount of blood that would satisfy you?

.....and where next?
Syria? Jordan? Algeria? Lybia? Europe? Liberals in the US? Everywhere except your own house?




posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 07:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrHoracid
I admire your faith. But attacking Iran with other than complete cleanzing would be useless. They will gain nukes, they will use them against Israel, and there will be armageddon.

If we do not attack Iran.........They will gain nukes, they will use them against Israel, and there will be armageddon.

If we try surgical attacks.........They will gain nukes, they will use them against Israel, and there will be armageddon.


What possible evidence do you have that Iran would use nukes offensively against Israel?
What that? Your arse you say? Thought so.


Originally posted by DrHoracid
What is the central theme here???????????


I don't see any, just your paranoia.


Originally posted by DrHoracid
I do wish there was no war, no nukes, no terror, no death period.


Yet in nearly every post you make you want nukes to be dropped, war to be waged, and people to die.
I do not know if it's because you get off on being so sadistic, or that you just hate everyone.


Originally posted by DrHoracid
When Christ returns there will be few left standing, no matter what is said here.

Iran is being led by satan through Islam.


Please post such fantasy in the religious forum, its where it belongs.

Have a nice and productive day.



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 07:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrHoracid
I admire your faith. But attacking Iran with other than complete cleanzing would be useless. They will gain nukes, they will use them against Israel, and there will be armageddon.

If we do not attack Iran.........They will gain nukes, they will use them against Israel, and there will be armageddon.

If we try surgical attacks.........They will gain nukes, they will use them against Israel, and there will be armageddon.

What is the central theme here???????????

I do wish there was no war, no nukes, no terror, no death period. When Christ returns there will be few left standing, no matter what is said here.

Iran is being led by satan through Islam.




While I know the ramifications for not totally eliminating these people, ask yourself is it God's place or ours to decide their faight , Im sorry its still genocide no better than that of Hitler and Stallin I cant except that is the only way to handel this we are fighting to stop stuff like this to commit the same crime when it suits us seems hypocritical doesnt it?

[edit on 19/1/2005 by drbryankkruta]



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 07:25 AM
link   
Simply a reminder

Again, keep it real and keep it on topic.
The slightest of personal insults will not be tolerated.

Thank you.




seekerof

[edit on 19-1-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 07:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Simply a reminder

Again, keep it real and keep it on topic.
The slightest of personal insults will not be tolerated.

Thank you.




seekerof

[edit on 19-1-2005 by Seekerof]





Woooopppppss who is this to cause I wasn't intending to insult anyone I thought I was appoligizing for having to say I didnt agree.



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 07:31 AM
link   
I ignore Horacid so I don't have to waste time reading his crap, if you disagree with him, ignore him also, don't waste valuable board space picking apart his insanity over and over again.

Nothing against those who can't tolerate his redundant hate, I just think its best if everyone stopped poking this particular troll. I'm inclined to miss important information if you include it in posts that start off quoting that zealot, A.) Because I get muscle cramps in my facial area from being unable to control my eyes from rolling every time I read his posts, even if it's just to find out what particular part of his colorful display is being commented on, and B.) I assume the rest of your post is directed at him, echoing my own, quite clear feelings, so I skip it.

Sorry to go off topic, and I'm not a mod, I just think all the time we spend responding to Horacid's rubbish, and the various trash spewed by his lookalikes, takes away from the integrity of the various individual discussions we try to participate in on this forum.



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 07:37 AM
link   
"Palestinian acquaintances of mine agreed that if it was an Iranian or
Iraqi bomb under discussion, an outburst of joy would have taken place
across the West Bank and Gaza. That bomb would be aimed against Israel,
while the Islamic bomb of Pakistan has no direct connection to Israel."

www.fas.org...

You ask for proof. Here is proof.

Which is better to do nothing and let a global nuclear war happen or stop it now by melting down just 1 country?

If the Iranian people will overthrow the radical mullahs they have a chance to survive. That is actually possible in Iran. It wasn't in Iraq nor was it in Afganistan.

Iran is the "Key" to global terrorisim and future global nuclear winter....



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join