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.

 

For or Against War with Iran

page: 6
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

The bulk of thier army was snipers, kinda scary huh.
Imagine faceing that as an infantry man!


Yeah that was very effective in urban areas like Stalingrad. I wonder why we dont make use of this same tactic in places like Iraq, I bet a few thousand snipers could put a cramp in insurgent operations.




posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrHoracid

Originally posted by Veltro
Against

If the young Iranians want to be free then it is their duty to start a revolution. Not the American's or any other western Nation. And we all know how Bush "freed" the Iraqis don't we. We've got enough trouble as it is, we don't need to drag the world deeper into war.


[edit on 23-1-2005 by Veltro]


Iraq has been "freed" from the oppression of one of the worse mass murderer's in history. Those that think the war in Iraq is going badly were obviously educated in modern public schools, a place where true history is no longer taught, only PC history.

After the US's own revolutionary war it took 13 years to come up with the constitution. There was much striff and turnoil. Indian raids killed hundreds if not thousands in these years. Then there was that whole war of 1812 thingy where british troops burned the whitehouse.

It would appear that the insanity that causes liberalism also removes "patience" along with common sense. Sad this disease called Liberalisim many of you are so far gone you don't even know your sick.....

You are so full of hate and intolerance of differing opinions and views that point fingers at others and scream "hate and intolerance".

Iran must not be allowed to develope Nukes to go along with their already advanced missile program. What ever it takes now, not after they can hold the world hostage.



[edit on 23-1-2005 by DrHoracid]



Another nation was "oppressing" America (America was being treated fine, just horrible PR on Britain's part..). Saddam's regime in Iraq was in power by itself, it was not a foreign nation. Therefor, for democracy to have arisen in Iraq, only a more powerful portion of its own people than the one's who supported the old regime would have to exist to bring in a place a new government through revolution. The fact that this revolution did not succeed just proves that Iraq did not want to be a deomcracy. The reason it took so long for America against Britain was because it was a small colony AGAINST the MOST POWERFUL NATION IN THE WORLD, not themselves. America was about 2/3 or 3/4 in support of the revolution. If there were no British troops, the revolution would have succeeded in about a month if not less, even though it had the disadvantage of having no real models to set itself by.

Let me just add to this that America would still be speaking British :p without the French, the only country to have lost WW2 twice (to the Germans, then the allies :p )

[edit on 1/23/05 by RedDragon]



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 03:31 PM
link   
It was not the snipers that won the war for Russia, it was the T-34 Tank. This excellant tank was able to go head-to-head against the best German tanks...it literally turned the tide against the Germans.



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by LA_Maximus
It was not the snipers that won the war for Russia, it was the T-34 Tank. This excellant tank was able to go head-to-head against the best German tanks...it literally turned the tide against the Germans.



Tanks are not the most effective weapons in tight urban areas.

T-34 Great tank but I dont know about head-to-head they were produced in sufficient numbers to overwhelm the limited German tanks. Russia made tens of thousands of T-34's.

1 one 1 though I would take a German Panther Type G over a T-34 anyday



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
So far, they all have hesitated to use them!

There was one time in history when only one country had nuclear weapons, and they used them.

Since then, thers haven't been any nuclear exchanges at all.


Who is "they all", so far only Israel, Pakistan, and India have them. Pakistan and India have been the closest the world has come to nuclear conflict in a very long time. And neither of their governments are run by truly religious extremists. So far there are no other nuclear powers in one of the most heated conflicts in existance, the Israeli/Arab conflict. Israel won't use nukes first, they are just like the US, greedy and power hungry, they will not risk those things for any religious purpose. Many arabs, including those in power in Iran, again, believe it is their religious duty to make sure Israel does not exist. Let's make sure they get some nukes. If the nuclear factor is brought into the Middle East conflict, I am certain we will all be sorry. Now, I would like to conduct a poll within a poll:

How many are willing to very likely sacrifice theirs and their childrens' futures to make sure America (one of Europes largest trading partners) and Israel are "put in their place", and to make sure Iran gets to nuclear weapons to be fair? How many are willing to risk almost certain nuclear conflict of an unknown scale to erupt?

And about the US using nukes, here was my view on that in my previous post:

Originally posted by 27jd
The US did use nukes, and that was a horrible day for humanity, instead of making sure that never occurs again, let's make sure it happens again and on a much wider scale.




[edit on 23-1-2005 by 27jd]



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Yeah that was very effective in urban areas like Stalingrad. I wonder why we dont make use of this same tactic in places like Iraq, I bet a few thousand snipers could put a cramp in insurgent operations.

Ah , but remember thier main sniper force lost a hell of a lot of troops and civilian casualties are high.
You still need a squaddie to fight a war but i agree it is very effective.



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 04:24 PM
link   
NO, but i am from old europe.

If a surgical airstrike on installations could stop the iranian army getting nukes I would not be totally against that.

A full scale ground war, well, if I really hated americans, I would say, go ahead! you would maybe get much more action than you bargained for, however I don't see much winners at the finishline, only losses of many iranian and american lives and an upsurge in worldwide terrorism, wich is actually the reason why I am against it and why i think that Bush may decide to "withdraw" his troops from iraq through Syria, rather than Iran.


[edit on 23-1-2005 by Countermeasures]



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Countermeasures
i think that Bush may decide to "withdraw" his troops from iraq through Syria, rather than Iran.


I heard of an old saying that went something like:

-If you want to take down a city, surround it with villages.

Syria would be the most logical step in our war....its weaker and would add a 3rd "village" on Irans borders. Perhaps all this Iran Invasion talk is just a feint for the strike against Syria.



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 05:20 PM
link   
I am against war with Iran unless it is absolutely needed. As it stands right now it is not needed.

If israel is really a big deal in the middle east, then let them fight the war.



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 05:29 PM
link   
I am 100% for a war with Iran, although I would prefer if it was started after Iraq and Afganistan are fully secured against external threats. The last thing we need is to sort out these two countries, to then attack another and leave them vulnerable again. In fact, should we present a good enough reason, it maybe possible to persuade Allied Iraqie forces to assist - presuming we can sort out Iraq before we attack Iran.

Hopefully, the US will use it's Air superiority first (as usual) to weaken Iran. Maybe ship bombardment, too, before sending in troops. Even then, its likely they will send SF's in before any other ground troops.

The reason I am for a war against Iran, is mainly due to the fact that the leaders are Islamic Extremists. Should these type of people secure WMD, it will be worse in the long-term for everyone, except muslim controlled countries.

As long as Britain and the US is economically, politically and militarily OK, the next stop should be Syria - shame there is little we can do about NK now


BTW: I am an Agnostic (close to Athiest), not Catholic or Christian. I also have no political stance at this time


[edit on 23/1/05 by NoobCommando]



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
If israel is really a big deal in the middle east, then let them fight the war.


For the most part I agree, but can we as whole (human beings) allow the war to go nuclear? Are we prepared to face the consequences we will all probably face when we allow everybody to have nukes? I know we wasted our credibility with the unjust war in Iraq, but Iran HAS a nuclear program, and war between nuclear Israel and nuclear Iran WILL go nuclear, no doubts in my mind. Can we afford for this to happen? And do we want to open the flood gates so every regime obtains nukes?



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd
And do we want to open the flood gates so every regime obtains nukes?


That depends on what "regime" we're talking about, I would not object to Japan or Taiwan obtaining Nukes for self defence. Iran has no business having Nukes.

This war is not just about Iran, Iraq etc etc.....its about dragging the Muslim community into the 21st century. If we leave them in their 12th century mindset, this war will go on-and-on with no end.

Thats what this invasion is all about, let them see whats its like to elect their own government and have a choice and "maybe"...just maybe it will be the spark that changes the Islamic world.



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by LA_Maximus
That depends on what "regime" we're talking about, I would not object to Japan or Taiwan obtaining Nukes for self defence. Iran has no business having Nukes.


Well, I for one was hoping we could continue as a world, what was started, but now seems abandoned, decreasing rather than increasing nuclear weapons. However I do agree, Japan or Taiwan would not be driven by irrational religious fundamentalism, so MAD would still be an effective deterrent, it would not be AS grave a situation as we face currently. But I still think increasing the number of nuclear powers, whichever regime, is not a good way to avoid a nuclear conflict on our fragile planet.



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 06:08 PM
link   
Why does anyone assume we will do these thing that the media shoots out their? lol I think we better see what is going on now to focus on completing of Iraq to recovery. USA will let these other nation know what is on their minds! Live for each day, nothing can be acomplished jumping from one starting point jumping ahead before the job is done.



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 06:11 PM
link   
Personally, I do not see any reason for war with Iran at this time. The middle east is a place that no one will ever win in and has been that way since time begain. Why not let them fight it out among themselves and whoever is left standing, we deal with.



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by LA_Maximus
Z Im sorry you feel that way and its true America is a young country, but we have done much to promote freedom in the world in our short time. We make mistakes, but at least we keep trying to make this world a better place....we learn and we move on.

Your hatred of us Christians comes out loud and clear, but there is no need to fear us, we're not stealing oil or launching a crusade, but only trying to make this world a safer place for your kids and mine.

Iran may not be a "child", but they better grow up and soon!!! Time is running out and our patience is at an end...remember that their first act after seizing power was to storm our embassy and take hostages.

It amazes me that you defend these folk....


Yeah you right it is amazing that i defend these folk, you knowe since im half persian and have alot of family in tehran i dont know why im against a war. You really dont a clue in your brain what iran is like, i ahve been there i know thats its not a bad country. And for the record i ahve been raised christian, you can follow what ever religon you want, it does not interfear with my life if you go to church on sunday, what does bug me i when you start calling people wrong for their belifes and start wars about it thats what gets me pissed. I really would not put America on the front of making the world free, Black people could not vote in your country untill when 1979? And trust i am most definatly not scared of christians.

I realise america is "trying" to make the world better but lets face it, your tactic sucks, its be done anf proven at least twice now, i think it's time to change how you deal with other countrys. The definition of Instanity is doing the same thing over and expecting a diffrent result, america goes to iran they are pretty much insane then.



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 06:31 PM
link   
Z, my secretary (Zeeba) is Persian. She inline chats back and forth with her family and friends in Iran (just like you do)...and she tells me how hopeful alot of young Iranians are that America will free them as well.

I do have a "Clue in my brain" what Im talking about....Zeeba tells me about her neices and nephews going to parties, dancing and having fun....just like our teenagers. They just want to have fun and not be told how to act and dress.

The older generation of Iranians is losing control to the younger generation and thats what really scares them....change. Iran is long overdue for a change, their "islamic revolution" has failed the Iranian people and now it threatens western society.



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by zi2525
Yeah you right it is amazing that i defend these folk, you knowe since im half persian and have alot of family in tehran i dont know why im against a war. You really dont a clue in your brain what iran is like, i ahve been there i know thats its not a bad country.


I'm sure the people of Iran are great, just like the people of any country. It's the government there I'm worried about. Do you trust the fundamental clerics in power there to make rational decisions in the best interest of their poeple and the world when it comes to nuclear weapons? Do you disagree that the religious extremists there wish to see Israel erased? Are you worried that if (although I say when) nuclear conflict breaks out between Iran and Israel, your family in Tehran will be vaporized? And they will if it does. Are you so against America that you're blinded as to what will likely happen if the government (not the people, who from what I understand don't particularly like the government there, maybe I'm wrong) of Iran does obtain nuclear weapons?



I realise america is "trying" to make the world better but lets face it, your tactic sucks, its be done anf proven at least twice now, i think it's time to change how you deal with other countrys. The definition of Instanity is doing the same thing over and expecting a diffrent result, america goes to iran they are pretty much insane then.


How else would we stop Iran from getting nukes? I wish there were another way, I'm very much opposed to war, but just a little less than I'm opposed to inviting almost certain nuclear war. The lives lost due to a military campaign in Iran would pale in comparison to a full retaliatory nuclear assault by Israel, I'm not saying America is always right or anything, but you should clear headedly weigh the options.



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 07:22 PM
link   
Iran attacks US military.

Iran holds American citizens hostage.

Iran has supported terrorist groups attacking Israel for years. Israel has the right to defend herself and will attack Iran when it feels Iran is close to producing nuclear warheads which will cause a war between the two states most likely growing into a regional conflict. This will cause disruption of oil flows and cause a large spike making recession in most industrial economies likely.

Indigo_Child wrote “If Iran had nuclear weapons it would have stabalized the region.”

Are you nuts? How would Iran owning nukes stabilize the region?

Veltro wrote: “If the young Iranians want to be free then it is their duty to start a revolution. Not the American's or any other western Nation.”

France helped America win independence from Britain. America would most likely be a British colony still if it was not for the French.

Check out how peaceful Iran is.

Any country that allows this type of activity will most assuredly use any nukes that they have. Iran must not be allowed to posse’s nukes. I am for taking out the nuclear facilities, taking out Iranians leadership, helping Iranians opposition groups etc.. to prevent the current Iranian leadership from gaining nukes.

We need to stop anymore countries from getting nukes.
Yeah America used nukes but only after they were attacked and used them in reservation only to save an estimated 400,000 American deaths from attacking Japans mainland.



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by cryptorsa1001
Iran has supported terrorist groups attacking Israel for years. Israel has the right to defend herself and will attack Iran when it feels Iran is close to producing nuclear warheads which will cause a war between the two states most likely growing into a regional conflict. This will cause disruption of oil flows and cause a large spike making recession in most industrial economies likely.


as i always the US and its double standerds


and its the same as when america funded the mujahadin to fight the USSR
the Iranians are helping people fight israeli occupation




edit whats the point in giving link to a site www.apostatesofislam.com
that is just full of propeganda made by so called ex muslims
dont people have better things to do then make sh*t up?

ps converts
how come they arnt slagging off christianity after they just converted from?


[edit on 23-1-2005 by bodrul]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join