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.

 

WAR: US military options in Iran not good: analysts

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 02:35 AM
link   
I never did like studying history. It was too time consuming.


Back on topic. Why is Iran soley the US' problem? If they are producing nuclear weapons capable of hitting as far away as the UK, why is it that we are not all presenting a united diplomatic face to Iran?

Does Europe not care? Don't they take the threat seriously?




posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 02:39 AM
link   
Europe is trying to use diplomacy with them, but of course they'll break the agreements and the only thing the EU will do is beat them with a wet noodle. In the end it always falls to the U.S. and the UK to be the "bad guy" and actually enforce international law and agreements.



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 03:21 AM
link   
just nukem its easier than thinking



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 06:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
Disturbed Deliverer,

No army on the face of the earth could defeat the American Military in a standup war. However, as we have seen in Iraq, winning the war and winning the peace are dramaticaly different items unto themselves.


On 9/11 it just needed a few Arabians (not Persians
) to make a whole nation feel helpless and shocked for several years. You want to tell me that it's all about firepower? If so, America would win everything but in the end it's more than that.
It's argueable if the terrorists won the war or if America did. I would say the terrorist won, just look at American now and before 9/11. That's not comparable.

Disturbed, your opinion maybe patriotic and daddy will be proud of you but when it comes to the real life it's useless propaganda. Read your own posts, don't you think you are a bit uppity?



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 06:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
Prince_Machiavelli

I don't need to read your sources because they won't say anything I don't already know.


Deny Ignorance. Infinte knowledge comes from admitting you know nothing. Your argument just lost its substance in my eyes.


Sep

posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 06:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
The Iran-Iraq war is brought up a lot, but in reality, the people were forced to go fight.


You dont know much about the Iran-Iraq war do you? 90% of the force that fought the war was a volunteered to fight. These people are know as Basijis and Sepahe Pasdaran. They volunteered in their millions and died in their millions. Dont insult them by saying they were forced to fight. No one forced them to go under the tanks and blow themselves up. No one forced them to run in their thousands towards the enemy and die. They volunteered for all of that.

If you read the story about the Iranian airforce during the Iraq war, you will get a good idea about the patriotism. The pilots were tortured and most of them were killed. But when it was announced that the war started the pilots volunteered to fight and they fought and died well.



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 06:48 AM
link   
I always have a chuckle when I see posts declaring how superior the US military is and how it can kick anyones butt. You then look at the "wars" it has fought over the last few decades and one thing stands out.... they haven't actually gone up against anyone with a similar, or even near, capability.
It's grand to be an armchair warrior and quote numbers and equipment specs but that's a far cry from reality. On Tarmac a Camel is no match for a Ferrari.... but try taking that Ferrari off road. War isn't so simplistic as having superior equipment and firepower. Who'd be daft enough to go toe to toe with the US military?


Sep

posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 06:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
You can go take a look at the past. Iran has been conquered by many different forces, and the Iranians (or "Persians") have welcomed them with open arms. Alexander the Great is a pretty good example.


When people were desprate they accepted a foreigner to rule them. But you are going too far back. How about a hundred years ago, when Russia invaded Iran's capital city and tried to put up a puppet dictator? Do you know what happened, with all your history lessons I am sure you do. A few men named Sattar Khan, Bagher Khan and another man whose name I cannot remember now, who were civilians, created an army and attacked the Russians and threw them out. Now does that sound like a country that opens its arms to foreign aggressors?



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 12:45 PM
link   
Sep

When people were desprate they accepted a foreigner to rule them. But you are going too far back. How about a hundred years ago, when Russia invaded Iran's capital city and tried to put up a puppet dictator? Do you know what happened, with all your history lessons I am sure you do. A few men named Sattar Khan, Bagher Khan and another man whose name I cannot remember now, who were civilians, created an army and attacked the Russians and threw them out. Now does that sound like a country that opens its arms to foreign aggressors?


I think you need to go review history some. Sattar Khan wasn't fighting a foreign threat, but the tyranical Shah who was undermining the new Iranian constitution. At the time Iran was divided in sphere of influence between the British and the Russians. The only time he was involved with foreign troops was when he was working with them. The British invaded Russia from 'Persia' to put a stop to the Russian Revolution. They staged a coup with British support, and formed a parliament in Iran.

Iran was still basically a puppet of the the British. What happened after British control ended? You had the American puppets.


You dont know much about the Iran-Iraq war do you? 90% of the force that fought the war was a volunteered to fight. These people are know as Basijis and Sepahe Pasdaran. They volunteered in their millions and died in their millions. Dont insult them by saying they were forced to fight. No one forced them to go under the tanks and blow themselves up. No one forced them to run in their thousands towards the enemy and die. They volunteered for all of that.


They volunteered? What options were they given? Go fight, or have Iraqi soldiers come knocking on your door. Or perhaps they were threatened. I only know that they tied a bunch of kids and old people together and made them run through minefields.

Britguy

I always have a chuckle when I see posts declaring how superior the US military is and how it can kick anyones butt. You then look at the "wars" it has fought over the last few decades and one thing stands out.... they haven't actually gone up against anyone with a similar, or even near, capability.
It's grand to be an armchair warrior and quote numbers and equipment specs but that's a far cry from reality. On Tarmac a Camel is no match for a Ferrari.... but try taking that Ferrari off road. War isn't so simplistic as having superior equipment and firepower. Who'd be daft enough to go toe to toe with the US military?


Let's take a look at other military powers in the world. I'll start with your nation, the UK.

The only conflict the British have taken part in in the last half century where they weren't just under American control would be the Falklands. The British took pretty heavy losses against a completely inferior force in both numers, quality, and tech. The British took about as many losses against a tiny army from Argentina as America took against a massive Iraqi army that was actually one of the largest in the entire world.

That's the most powerful army in Western Europe.

The Chinese? Just take a look at the Korean War. They launched a surprise attack on American troops who were spread out across the Korean peninsula and only at 40% of their total strength. Still they suffered massive casualties in comparison. They had a massive numbers advantage, plus the advantage of the time of the attack. It had been an unpopular war in America. China should have been able to force America completely off the peninsula.

Russia? Look at Afghanistan and Chechnya. Not to mention the only time Russians and Americans directly went at each other was over the skies of Korea. America ended that war with a 10:1 kill ratio in inferior planes.

We can also take a look at any time Russian equipment has faced off against American equipment. F-16's and F-18's have beaten Mig-29's flown by vergy good German pilots in exercises a few times now. Not to mention American planes have had a spotless record against Russian planes for decades now. The F-15 has shot down a number of Flankers and Mig's.

Tanks? I think Iraq showed how inferior Russian tanks were. Saddam's elite Republican Guard with their advanced T-72's faced off against M1A1's, and were completely destroyed with a single loss of an Abram.

The great Russian SAM's? They've been used in a few places, and have ALWAYS proven ineffective against American technology. Syria had an enormous amount of Russian SAM's and migs. Israel was able to take those out with impunity with conventional planes. Iraq and Kosovo both had advanced Russian SAM's once again. They were completely destroyed with no real losses. In 2003 Iraq's airdefenses were actually set up by the Chinese, and were supposed to be far more effective then they were the first time around. They performed even worse.

America is the only nation that can deploy its forces all over the world. No one else has America's capability to deploy troops. Europe, with all of their strength combined, could NEVER have invaded Iraq. Europe's a military equal of America, though, right? America's navy is the most powerful in the world by a longshot.

You can look wherever you want. America always has the best just about everywhere. We have the best trained, best equipped, best funded, most deployable, manueverable force on the planet. In the word's of a French official, "America is the only game in town."

Shoo

It's argueable if the terrorists won the war or if America did. I would say the terrorist won, just look at American now and before 9/11. That's not comparable.


I find it hard to believe that anyone who doesn't sit around talking on a conspiracy site, or doesn't live in Europe would agree with. America hasn't changed at all.


Disturbed, your opinion maybe patriotic and daddy will be proud of you but when it comes to the real life it's useless propaganda. Read your own posts, don't you think you are a bit uppity?


It's horrible propaganda, but you can't prove it wrong...

Don't come around telling me I'm wrong and lying and brainwashed unless you can actually tell me why.



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 01:56 PM
link   


Saddam's elite Republican Guard with their advanced T-72's faced off against M1A1's, and were completely destroyed with a single loss of an Abram.


"Advanced T-72's?!?!?!" lol, it's obvious you know nothing about military equipment. The T-72 is 1971 cold war era garbage exported by Russia to whoever will buy them. It's not hard to see why the Abrams and the US airforce decimated these metal coffins with inferior range, detection capabilities, speed, armor, etc. Now if they were actually equipped with something up to date such as the Russian T-90, T-94, or Black Eagle, the Americans would surely have a fight on their hands.



We have the best trained


Best trained?!?!! Please!!! The only thing a regular US infantry soldier knows how to do is fire their M-16 and do as they're told. Trust me I've witnessed this first hand. The Canadians and British for example are a FAR superior and professional fighting force. Regular Canadian infantry is compared to US marines and Army Rangers!! Canadian battalions frequently decimate larger american forces in excercise, again I have witnessed this first hand. It's much like Churchil said in WW2, "if I had American equipment, British officers, and Canadian soldiers I could take over the world."

-raven



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer


The British didn't have any overwhelming advantage. Other powers in the world were on par with them in economic and military means. They were also fighting wars on multiple fronts at the time and couldn't use all of their military strength.

America's military dominance is on par with Rome's, or even the Mongols.


WHAT!?!


I would call the largest organized Navy in the world, the most organized, well-armed, and experienced army in the world, - and about a 1000 to 1 odds on the cannon stores AN ADVANTAGE.

The Revolutionary war is, in fact, an awesome example of why you should never, ever assume the outcome in a military conflict.

Saigon 1975 would be another one....an we had a draft then, and military supplies....two things we don't have today.



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 02:11 PM
link   

I would call the largest organized Navy in the world, the most organized, well-armed, and experienced army in the world, - and about a 1000 to 1 odds on the cannon stores AN ADVANTAGE.


The British ground forces were hardly the best in the world. I think the French kind of proved that. The navy was the real strong point for the British.

The fact is, the British actually mananged to lose open battles to Americans during the Revolution and War of 1812 (they eve lost one one of the most lopsided battles in history). That shows how their land dominance wasn't anywhere near what America's is.


Saigon 1975 would be another one....an we had a draft then, and military supplies....two things we don't have today.



I'm not sure what you're talking about when you say military supplies. We're far better equipped today then during Vietnam. Vietnam was over before 1975, as well.

A draft isn't a good thing for a military, either. All volunteer armies are more disciplined, and have higher morale.


Sep

posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 09:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
I think you need to go review history some. Sattar Khan wasn't fighting a foreign threat, but the tyranical Shah who was undermining the new Iranian constitution. At the time Iran was divided in sphere of influence between the British and the Russians. The only time he was involved with foreign troops was when he was working with them. The British invaded Russia from 'Persia' to put a stop to the Russian Revolution. They staged a coup with British support, and formed a parliament in Iran.


Well if you say so it must be right. So you are saying that the freedom fighters from the north never recieved a threat from both the British and Russian embassies? When they invaded the entire north of Iran? No Russian forces were sent to Iran and they were never suprised by the 3000 strong men who gathered in Karaj. The Cossak brigade which was Russian never retreated, and they were never surrounded and froced to surroender. And on July 16th, 1909 Tehran was not under the control of the freedom fighters. And on September 10th, 1909 the former shah of Iran was not exiled to Russia. I kind of heard diffrent but if you say none of the events ever happened it must be true. And about what you said about the British supporting him The Minister of Foreign Affairs of England sent a telegram to the Ambassador of England to Iran on 16.3.1910 which resulted in Sattar Khans death. If he was their pupet, why would they kill him?

[edit on 23-1-2005 by Sep]


Sep

posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
Iran was still basically a puppet of the the British. What happened after British control ended? You had the American puppets.


So you are saying Reza Khan never came to power and we never became friends with Germany and we were British pupets? If we were why would the British invade Iran (illeagally) at the start world war two for not cooprating with them?



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 01:50 PM
link   
I have no clue what you're talking about with any of this. The Cossack Brigade was Iranian, not Russian. And the coup staged by the men you mentioned was British backed. Go look it up if you don't believe me.


Well if you say so it must be right. So you are saying that the freedom fighters from the north never recieved a threat from both the British and Russian embassies? When they invaded the entire north of Iran?


Russian troops never made it to the capital of Iran as you said before. The British kept the Russians at bay, not nationalistic Iranians.


So you are saying Reza Khan never came to power and we never became friends with Germany and we were British pupets? If we were why would the British invade Iran (illeagally) at the start world war two for not cooprating with them?


He came to power through a British backed coup.

Reza Khan did try and get on Hitler's good side, and he was invaded by the allies because of it. It's interesting you'd bring that up, since it was a cakewalk for the British and Russian forces. They met no real resistance.

[edit on 24-1-2005 by Disturbed Deliverer]



posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
WHAT!?!


I would call the largest organized Navy in the world, the most organized, well-armed, and experienced army in the world, - and about a 1000 to 1 odds on the cannon stores AN ADVANTAGE.

The Revolutionary war is, in fact, an awesome example of why you should never, ever assume the outcome in a military conflict.

Saigon 1975 would be another one....an we had a draft then, and military supplies....two things we don't have today.


Maybe his bottom line is, no matter how powerful you are, you will fall at some time and the biggest army is lost without leadership.
But as your last two paragraphs say, you already know that


[edit on 24-1-2005 by shoo]



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 09:47 PM
link   
Lets see, 4 carrier battle groups (possibly 5), 120,000 battle hardened troops aclimatised, re-equipped and constantly trained for the past year (only an idiot would think they've all been busy 'peacekeeping' in Baghdad, that's what the reservists are for) and the Israelis itching to start it all off. (end of March by their statements therefore probably mid-March). Air-strikes by Israel, retaliation by Iran including striking American positions in Iraq and heh-ho off we go.

And a simple number crunch on assets should tell you the outcome. Irrespective of the average GI's fighting ability there ain't no-one who can withstand that degree of fire power.

The only 'not-good' thing about an upcoming invasion of Iran is the potential for escalation and ensuing oil price debacle.

[edit on 25-1-2006 by parihaka]



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 09:56 PM
link   
Its not like we are going to invade Iran like we did with Iraq. Its more like bombing the crap out of Iran, all the facilities relating to its nuclear project. The Iranians could retaliate by having its followers in Iraq attack American forces. But at least it could set back Iran's project for years maybe.

O yeah, Iran won't invade Iraq to take on Americans. The Iranians know they won't be welcome by Iraqis, even if the religion is the same on both sides. Its more likely that the Iranians will just try to support organizations in Iraq to attack the Americans.

[edit on 25-1-2006 by deltaboy]



posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 02:23 AM
link   
Imo the best option would something along the lines of tactical nukes . Hang on that probaly isnt an option because the US and its allies are bog down and isloated in Iraq.



posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 09:49 AM
link   
i-predict-that-escalations-will-spill-accross-the-boarder-in-the-south-of-iraq......keep-your-ears-peeled-for-a-cross-border-escalation-between-Britis h-and-iranian-forces......the-drums-are-already-beating...................



[edit on 26-1-2006 by winston_187]

[edit on 26-1-2006 by winston_187]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join