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.

 

Conflict with Iran??

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by infinite

Originally posted by drbryankkruta
Well atleast I hope you are right, I live here in the USA and even I hope they dont support this in the UK as well.


We are not going to

Report was published by Jack Straw and he said we are not going to war because our economy could not afford to







Thats the wonderful thing about deficits they can be made , and Bush can come up with the money if he wanted to by stealing it from somewhere he cant afford to , money is no object to an obsessed warmonger.




posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by MickeyDee
So if US attacks Iran leaving NK free to attack US, US agrees to stand by while China take Taiwan on the condition that China holds back NK???






Well top white house consultants said there is alot of political horse trading going on , maybe they mean this, Ill give you this country if you fight this country so I can blow this country away and save that country



posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 08:54 PM
link   
I do not believe Iran even has missles capable of reaching the Continental US or Hawaii/Alaska. If they were going to launch nukes at anyone, it would be Israel because Afghanistan and Iraq, although currently bases of the enemy, has too many Islam brothers and sisters so their meaningless deaths would just help them lose support from most in the Islamic world, Please and lets be serious none of this "oh well their fanatical jihadist brothers would feel the deaths were in the name of Allah and therefore further the cause" or whatever cuz thats just silliness. Israel is the prime target because as far as common thought goes, the Jews and their Zionist state are the natural enemy of Islam. From every Arabic, Muslim person I have met, they all told me they hate Jews with a passion. Now I don't know maybe I am just meeting with the wrong Arabic people, but from what I know majority of them just cannot tolerate the Jews.

My point is if Iran were to launch any Nuclear attack on anyone, it would only be Israel. I really do not believe however that Iran will initiate a first strike (nuclear) except as a very last resort. I am not too worried about North Korea because they are just going to stay in the same position as they are in now until the Middle East is dealt with, regardless if they have nukes or not. Too many pro U.S. surrounding NK for anything to happen in this time frame.



posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 10:11 PM
link   
The Mullahs grasp on power in Iran is dependant on inciting hatred of the west in general and the U.S. in particular.
Kim rules on the same basis.
These creeps don't deny ignorance, they enforce it. It is the key to thier legitimacy.
If you can't oppose them because you hate Bush, you are the enemy.



posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 11:31 PM
link   
Hmm maybe we do have some giant weapon that shoots down nukes. If weve made our own triangular shaped UFOs, then there is no doubt that we would be building some sort of weapon to shoot the nukes down. That would be at the top of my list to build if other countries started building their own nukes so Im sure we are safe as far as that goes. The only thing I can think of based on the news I am gathering is that in order for there to be any type of nuclear attack in the US, it would have to be done by terrorists or the government itself so that they might blame it on terrorists and then throw martial law in our faces and lock us up. Seems like there is a lot of unaccounted for nuclear material in the news and then the CIA saying more terror attacks are imminent. I think they are planning something, and it might just be worse than the 11th. God be with us all!



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 03:44 AM
link   
pack your bags boys and girls. I smell a draft within the next year or two. Geesh I didnt think when I was younger that id live to see World War 3. Once again my teachers prooves me wrong
. Iran will join with Syria and the Iraq Insurgents then were screwed up the butt by Korea. Didnt Titor predict this happening? Something about China Korea joining forces along with some places in the middle east? I didnt look to much into Titor cause I thought he was a hoax. I dunno.....



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 05:45 AM
link   
Titor, and a few other fantasies aside.... WWIII ain't here yet. You may be even borrowing trouble, as it were. I'd kind of wait a while before I started getting all depressed over it.



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 06:37 AM
link   
WWIII is not round the corner. if the US does attack Iran, which they wont, NK may attack but with nothing more than airstrikes (can u really see NK mounting an amphibious invasion on the US)? And as soon as their bombs start falling on US cities, Mr Bush will not be a happy man and will throw hundreds of nukes in their direction. NK will surrender, Iran and syria will realise Bush is not a man to mess with, and therefore world peace will be here. (and a big radioactive cloud over the far east...



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 09:02 AM
link   
deyepes


You are correct the most recent delivery system developed and tested in Iran was a 100 mile system and it didnt even perform to the best of it's ability. But you need to remember Russia has helped build the Iranian nuke plant and that in it;s very core implicates an exchange of technology, and not just in peaceful technology. I think under the table Iranian /Russian relations stretch beyond peaceful nuke programs into strategic military nuke placement, Russia finds it easier to have an ally take the heat for war nukes being placed outside the country where they can be more effective in the short range , then actually taking the hit to their characture for moving their own equiptment into Iran. Ever since Korea and Nam the Russians have been trying to keep Russia arms trade as quiet as possible after being blaimed for illegally suppling armies and rebels with Russian made equipment



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 09:18 AM
link   
Would Russia risk relations with the west just so they can base some nukes in Iran? If Russia backed Iran in a nuclear war with the US, almost half the world would turn on them and the UN would impose massive sanctions which would destroy them very quickly.



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by MickeyDee
Would Russia risk relations with the west just so they can base some nukes in Iran? If Russia backed Iran in a nuclear war with the US, almost half the world would turn on them and the UN would impose massive sanctions which would destroy them very quickly.







Russia has taken a major hit to its interests with the susession of terroritories and the establishment of rudamentury democracy in the seseeded territories, the are looking for more people willing to go with their flow and opening themselves to build a strong alliance with common ideas to compensate for the losses , they will risk it as a matter of survival.



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
you actually think that North Korea; a backwards economically and technologically nation
would attack the USA "when we have our back turned dealing with iran"

seriously
that is impossible
it makes no sense
plus its rediculous

North korea would not, could not, attack USA
north korea, may however, attack south korea and japan

but north korea has no means to attack USA
youve got to be kidding

no one with a ounce of knowledge of current world politics could seriously entertain the notion that North Korea #1 will attack USA, and #2 would cause any serious damage to USA

give me a break peeps










Basic combat strategy dictates that the most unexpected and most unlikely will be that which creeps up from behind to destroy you, never under estimate a foe with great resolve and minimal resources for they will work great wonders in desperate strives to survive or defend their way of life.


Case in point the Iraq insurgency was underestimated and now they are cleaning house , we and our allies are droping like flies to the desperation of a weaker foe. An in fact US leaders have been forced to abmit they under estimated the size of their forces and the ability they have to wrot damage on a wide area with individualized and disorginized attacks.







[edit on 18/2/2005 by drbryankkruta]



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 11:30 AM
link   
The question really revolves around economic trade. Would the large transnational corporate entities of the USA risk a multifaceted global war in East Asia or the Middle east?! The Western economic system of coporate globalization is predicated on cheap labour in China and Taiwan, etc.. If a nuclear exchange was allowed to occur, the essential labourers that uphold the Economic system for the USA and Western Europe would be annihilated, thus destroying international finance, a cornerstone to the NWO theorists....so basically none of these scenarios are plausible. My only prediction is rather moderate: a limited airstrike from Israeli jets upon a nuclear facility in Iran...a large scale attack by any soverign nation would be completely irrational and counterpoductive to the economic/political elites who are the potential controllers of international finance and global politics.



posted on Feb, 19 2005 @ 01:13 AM
link   
Ok dropping like flies? Lets please talk sanely. I wouldnt consider less than 1% casualties in approxiatmely 2 years dropping like flies. People you have to realize militarily speaking Iraq is like one of the easiest wars to ever have taken place. Im not saying that the loss of life is insignificant, because every life matters. Im just saying its taken almost 2 years to lose just above 1000 soldiers (US) in a warzone, more people die everyday just from tobacoo related illnesses. I am not rationalizing or justifying any deaths or anything here. I am just saying that by saying we are dropping like flies or taking heavy casualties, I believe this to be exaggerated considering the circumstances.

Now a war against a whole other country like Iran is a different story. ur military is so good because of its ability to take out enemy defenses with swift haste. B-2 bombers, F-117 stealth bombers, fighter jets shooting GPs guided missles, GPs guided cruise missles launching from the sea. These things are what help us take out an enemy. By using cruise missles to take out the their Air defenses, we can then bring in our bombers to take out communications in order to cut off orders to their groudn troops. This is what we did in Iraq, and I feel Iran if it ever came down to it, would be a similar situation. the only reason I foresee heavier casualties is because the terrain is alot rougher for ground troops and therefore a massive ground assault would be counter productive. But anyways regarding nukes, hey to be honest for some reason I get the feeling the first person to use them is going to be us. After all we have been the only ones to ever use them against an enemy. who is to say it wont happen again?

Iraq coalition casualty figures


[edit on 2/19/2005 by DYepes]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join