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.

 

NEWS: Iran Warns U.S. Not to Play with Nuclear 'Fire'

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 13 2005 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Well Gazz, remember something, Iran, NK, China, India, Russia, Israel, they will do the same thing that US will do if let say Iran or NK tells US that needs to stop his nuclear program and dismantle their nuclear plants.


North Korea and Iran both signed the NPT. They agreed not to make nuclear weapons. This isn't a real comparison. America and Russia and those other nations have never said they wouldn't make weapons.


Well since we are being 'realistic' Then lets go with knowns and we really know far less about Iran's cababilities than we should so go ahead.. Have a look..


We have a general idea of what they have. We're not going into Iran to find death lasers, stealth planes and super tanks.

We are the most powerful nation this Earth has ever seen. Iran is a second or third world hellhole with an unpopular government.

There is no way anyone can take on the American military in a conventional fight. That includes any European nation, China, or Russia.

Even when it comes to a resistance like in Iraq we could crush it if we were willing to stop being such pussies.




posted on Feb, 13 2005 @ 09:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
There is no way anyone can take on the American military in a conventional fight. That includes any European nation, China, or Russia.


I can agree with that, I just do not believe that Iran is going to sit there and do nothing to get ready to defend itself, and I am sure they have been since the day President Bush named them in the "axis of evil".

I also do not believe that Iran is going to be the "cake walk" so many believe.

And lets not forget the added anger that will build in and already angry muslim population world wide.

Just my thoughts.


[edit on 13-2-2005 by UM_Gazz]



posted on Feb, 13 2005 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by UM_Gazz

What can we expect if we do nothing?

What can we expect if we take out the nuclear threat?

What other options are there?

It seems like diplomacy has failed so really what else can be done?


Do Nothing - The Theocracy in Iran cannot long remain in power if elections come to the middle east - they will be forced by political considerations to take rash action to maintain internal control by formenting external threats real or not. Irregardless their time in power will come to an end. Both countries leadership may get desperate in their respective actions to remain in power.

The Iranian leadership cannot in any way deliver a nuclear weapon against the US or its interests without the means of delivery being traced to its source, they know that, we know that.

The only likely means of delivery then becomes one of a covert nature carried out by third parties through such means as shipping container, smuggling to target city and other hard to detect means.

It is my belief that either Iran or North Korea will indeed supply a nuclear weapon to a terrorist group willing to use them - for it is the only viable means of attacking without suffering immediate and devastating retaliation.

With the support that both Iran and North Korea enjoy from China and Russia I do wonder what complicity may exist and whether the cold war really did end as we all thought.

Apply a little Machivellian thinking to the situation and it gets scary real fast.


Do Something - First and foremost a campaign to force the issue into the public spotlight such as was accomplished during the Cuban missile crisis may be in order. The issue must be made large enough that the UN security council members that would veto action on Iranian as well as North Korean nukes - namely China and Russia could not veto without suffering loss of credibility.

Secondly support for internal opposition must be given a high priority by the American public as well as its politicians for peaceful (relatively) change to happen in these countries.

Finally military action must not be ruled out nor prematurely taken away at the negotiating table. The past has shown that diplomacy or sanctions without consequence only hurt the innocent and prolong the errant regimes aims internally.

Any pain suffered must be felt by the regimes themselves for punishment to work, I mean by punishment to say that diplomatically, economically and socially the effect should have the greater effect on the powers that be rather than the people.

That punishment could indeed include limited milkitary strikes.

Counting on Israel to get us out of any pinch with Iran by having it strike the nuclear facilities is to count on an action of desperation driven by national survival.

Israel were it to strike a nuclear armed Iran would not be able to absorb the possible retaliatory strikes in return - its a small country and three or four well targeted cruise missile with nuclear warheads would all but knock it out of action. Iran on the otherhand could absorb much more damage from an Iraeli counterstrike and still achieve national survival in the long run - Israel weakened by Iranian strikes could easily be overwhemed by its neighboring ememies.

That leaves the US standing more or less alone to take military action were it to be neccessary.


Other Options - Threaten to cut trade with China and Russia in whole until they control their respective arms and economic support of these rouge regimes including a verifiable disarmament programs for both countries.

Short of that drastic step I do not profess to know an answer UM_Gazz



Finally for those of you who continue to profess the idea that its OK for Iran and North Korea to have nuclear weapons on the basis that other countries have them - none of the other contries that possess them are led by either a certifiable maniac nor are they led by a fervently religious theocratic government professing that infidels are fair game when it comes to killing their enemy by any means available.

Those that lay claim to this justification should have themselves examined.



[edit on 13-2-2005 by Phoenix]



posted on Feb, 13 2005 @ 11:57 PM
link   

I can agree with that, I just do not believe that Iran is going to sit there and do nothing to get ready to defend itself, and I am sure they have been since the day President Bush named them in the "axis of evil".


Saddam was planning, too. He had learned his lesson after the Gulf War, and had his troops prepare for guerilla war.

If Iran thinks they can retaliate against us with their Shahab missiles, or some kind of ground effort, they are saddly mistaken. I doubt they have this planned, anyway. They know their capability. They know that if America does bomb, they can at least save some face with the rest of the world by not responding. It could discredit America some, and it keeps their incompetent government in charge. It may even unite the people behind them.

That is probably what the Iranian government has planned if they are attacked.



posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 01:00 AM
link   
I think many people make the mistake of assuming that Iran is just another Iraq, I believe Iran is much better able to defend itself than Iraq was.

My guess is that Irans armed forces will fall within the frist 6-7 days. Its navel and airforces will be the first destroyed by stealth bombers and missel attacks. Their armies will be desimated by B-1 and B-52's raining bombs 24-7. They will have no tanks, trucks or supply lines that will be safe from US. Whats left of them will lse the will to fight and the ones that want to try us on will meet allah soon after. After they are reduced to a a handful of wife beating camelhumpers the US will send in the ground troops. Of course this doesn't include what Iranian officers may be thinking or working out with special forces and CIA ops. Did you ever stop to think that once they know we are commmitted to invasion they now have support in over throwing the mullahs. These people have as much will to fight for the mullahs as Saddams men had with dieng for Saddam. The thing is there isn't one man in Irans armies that doesn't know or is related to one of the mullahs many victims. but hey America is evil.



posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 06:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
Saddam was planning, too. He had learned his lesson after the Gulf War, and had his troops prepare for guerilla war.


Again you compare Iran to Iraq.



They know that if America does bomb, they can at least save some face with the rest of the world by not responding. It could discredit America some, and it keeps their incompetent government in charge. It may even unite the people behind them.


I would hope that the top brass in the U.S. military do not make the mistake of assuming this to be the case.

We are after all talking about a nation on the verge of having nuclear capabilities, a nation lead by radical muslims who believe the U.S.A. to be the great satan.



posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 06:29 AM
link   
Does anyone else find it comical that Iran is "warning the US about playing with fire"?
I mean its like a circus midget threatening the green berets.
Is there anyone who doubts that the US, if it put its full military, political, and economic weight aganst Iran, could level the country?
Come on guys elephants aren't really scared of mice and the US military sure as hell aint scared of Iran.



posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 06:39 AM
link   
Iran is issuing a warning, and the US will either accept the warning and back off, or will attack and see what it gets.

Do an internet search for sunburn, or onyx. Then, take a tape measure and go to the gulf, measure it across and tell me; how long will a missle travelling almost mach 3 take to reach the US carrier groups?

I think American pride will last about as long as those pretty carriers, when folded like a stick of gum across the conventional warhead of the Russian-made Hypersonic cruise missle. Without support from the carriers, America lacks the capability to support it's ground forces or bombing campaigns in the region.

Turn --> Tail between legs --> Scurry home

It bothers me that all this could be avoided if only Americans weren't so permissive of their governments inadequacy and greed.



posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Again you compare Iran to Iraq.


Because they're similiar. And if Iran wasn't taking notes on the wars with Iraq, they'd be complete idiots.


We are after all talking about a nation on the verge of having nuclear capabilities, a nation lead by radical muslims who believe the U.S.A. to be the great satan.


They are a good while from getting nukes. If they used nukes, they'd cause minimal damage, while being completely destroy themselves.

The only threat would be from their Shahab missiles, but those can mostly be taken care of with the missile defenses we have.



posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
Seriously though, what would be more destabilizing? Allowing Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon and make a first strike against Israel or the U.S. taking them out first? Opinions?


Iran has made no recent overt threats against Israel. The US rhetoric against Iran is much more provocative than anything the mullahs have been saying recently against Israel. So if we are going to discuss this properly, lets not pretend that the US isn't the aggressor here.



posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Iran warned the United States on Sunday not to attack its nuclear facilities and said talks with Europe might produce a deal to defuse the dispute over its alleged covert ambitions to build atomic weapons.

They know our capabilities. We have clearly told the Europeans to tell the Americans not to play with fire,"


Not long ago Bush said "U.S. efforts have lit a fire in the minds of men. It warms those who feel its power, it burns those who fight its progress and one day this untamed fire of freedom will reach the darkest corners of our world"

That is beautifully expressed



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 04:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043


Now we just will have to sit and wait, like Gazz said Iran is not Iraq, they have a steady structural government, their majority citizens backs their leaders, and they have a heck more people than Iraq.


he majority of citizens backs their leaders? ?? that can not possibly be further from truth. Most of Iranians(%60 are under 30) HATE the leaders guts. I suppose you believe what you want to believe any way.



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 05:28 AM
link   
Underestimating The Wrong Enemy

In war, the one fatal mistake is underestimating your enemy.

I see plenty of people warning that the U.S. shouldn't underestimate Iran.

Just so.

What seems to get overlooked is that it's a sword that cuts both ways.

Iran appears to be underestimating the U.S., and that is why the current government will fall.

I'll stack the U.S. track record against Iran's any day.

The insinuations by those who really are smart enough to know better that the U.S. will simply ride in on our horses with sixguns a-blazing simply illustrates my point.

Go ahead, underestimate the United States.

We appreciate the support that gives us.

If people didn't underestimate us, we might not be able to defeat them as easily as we have.

Saddam Hussein underestimated us, too.


Sep

posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 05:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by zurvan
he majority of citizens backs their leaders? ?? that can not possibly be further from truth. Most of Iranians(%60 are under 30) HATE the leaders guts. I suppose you believe what you want to believe any way.


The people in Iran dislike their leaders and seek greater freedom. But the rhetorics of the US isnt helping the Iranians to achieve greater freedoms. They demonstrated just a while ago, during the celebration of the revolution, that between the Mullahs and foreigners, they would choose the Mullahs by coming out in their millions in below freezing temprtures and supporting the Mullahs.

Its just like many other Western nations, some people in US and Europe hate their leaders, but what would happen incase of an attack? Well for that we have to go back to 9/11 to see if the Americans rebled against their government or if they all supported him. If memory serves me right, the liberals were shuted up and rightists spoke up and everyone were in favour of Bush. If the disaster had been greater, people would would have supported their leaders even more, just like they would in Iran.



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 06:29 AM
link   
dude talk about disillusionment! What the heck are you talking about? How could you compare US elected government with Iranian Mullah "supreme (yeah right
) leaders"?????

I don't see most of American youth being attacked by police on the streets for the way they are clothed or their hair style.I don't see the polic raiding theri parties because there are boys and girls together! I don't see most of Americans actually hating their government. Wake up dude. I for one would not fight. What do you fight for? Iran is lost to Islam so it is already taken. nothing to stand up for. We already have the enemy running the country. If you saw people stand up against Iraq it was because in their minds at the time Iran was alive and not slave to some Muslim rug heads! it is a different story today, I personally think anybody who tries to defend is either extremely religious or stupid. you know what good we need less of both in Iran and them fighting will take care of that.



any way you want my vote no way I would fight! I would welcome them(US) as the last chance for Iran to get rid of cancer of Islam, and quite frankly I don't think I am in minority! the hell that the regime has created for Iranian youth is unbearable.

out cant stop laughing though that you could even think about comparing Iranian theocracy to European or American system


[edit on 15-2-2005 by zurvan]


Sep

posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by zurvan
any way you want my vote no way I would fight! I would welcome them(US) as the last chance for Iran to get rid of cancer of Islam, and quite frankly I don't think I am in minority! the hell that the regime has created for Iranian youth is unbearable.

out cant stop laughing though that you could even think about comparing Iranian theocracy to European or American system



I never compared the American system to the Iranian system of government, I put forward a logic. When a country is under attack the right always speak out loud while the left becomes weak. Its the same in every country.

I about you being a part of the majority who wants to get rid of Islam, all I have to say to that is lol, if Iranians wanted to get rid of Islam, over 90% of them would not have been Muslim.



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 08:11 PM
link   

as posted by WrydeOne
Without support from the carriers, America lacks the capability to support it's ground forces or bombing campaigns in the region.


Umm, no, WrydeOne.
Got a base in Diego Garcia, got numerous ones that can be used in Afghanistan, Iraq, and some other 'unknowns'. It can and would be able to support and sustain any type air campaign agaist Iran.




seekerof



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 08:24 PM
link   
Iran warns U.S. Not to Play with Nuclear 'Fire.'

Hmm, I would think that the proper U.S. response would be:
"No, no, Iran, it is you who had better not play with nuclear 'fire', okie dokie?"




seekerof



[edit on 15-2-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 09:23 PM
link   
Inexplicably posted response to wrong forum. Delete at will.

[edit on 05/2/15 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 10:15 PM
link   
You know, something I've yet to see anyone bring up is the fact that Iran's warning is kind of acknowledging that they're after nukes. Why else say don't play with "nuclear fire?"




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join