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.

 

US attack on Iran?

page: 6
59
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 30 2018 @ 06:51 PM
link   
a reply to: haman10

Sure, You want a tyrant in Your life and country? Knock Yourself out!

CIA, Drugs and other Dark Stuff

Everyone, including Iranians, Brits and Yankees should read.

Not sure that everything is true, but most, probably is.




posted on Jul, 30 2018 @ 08:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: FredT

originally posted by: face23785

There are a lot of options between economic sanctions and invasion.


Like what? Twitter barrage? Haarsh language? Sanction down't work. Dropping bombs on their own don't work. So what are those in between option you speak of?


For one your analysis of the lack of damage we could do to their underground facilities is assuming we only hit them with one bomb. You can reach deep underground facilities with successive strikes. However, the point of limited strikes without an invasion wouldn't necessarily be that we must get every piece of their nuclear infrastructure. The entire situation is a cost-benefit analysis. Right now, they've assessed that their pursuit of a nuclear weapon is in their best interest. What we have to do is change that calculation. We're trying to do that right now by raising the economic cost with sanctions. Air and missile strikes could drastically change that calculation in two ways:

1. This adds an enormous economic cost because now you have to rebuild and maybe even restart certain parts of the program. Perhaps even multiple times, depending on how long they want to play that game. That would probably take a while to work, and we would probably give up that scenario before they did because every time we hit them we'd endure tremendous international and domestic political pressure to quit being bullies. There's another side to this though.

2. This is the piece that is more likely to get their attention. Comprehensive air and missile strikes could seriously degrade their security situation. Iran worries about Israel, Saudi Arabia or Iraq getting the upper hand on them. Even if we can't guarantee that we get every single nuclear facility, we could damage their infrastructure and security apparatus to the point where it makes them vulnerable to other regional actors. And I'm not talking about one of those countries invading them. It would give them much higher odds of success of instigating an insurgency though. It may possibly even leave them open to invasion, although I don't think Saudi Arabia or Israel would do this. Iraq who knows, their leadership is kinda iffy. This effect could manafest very fast, and while there would be backlash from the international community and at home, this wouldn't be a long, drawn-out campaign. The political consequences wouldn't be anything close to what they were from the 2003 Iraq invasion.

Even if they're willing to take the economic costs on the chin, you can bet they give a damn about their regime survival.

To be clear, I'm not advocating for any of these scenarios, I'm just letting you know what some of the options are. If we had to take such actions, it could have all kinds of unforseen consequences. It could even lead to some kind of regime change in Iran and we all know how that worked out in Iraq and Libya.

The point is, we have to make them understand it's in their best interests to avoid these scenarios by entering into an actual agreement to give up their nuclear program instead of the worthless deal Obama/Kerry negotiated. They'll never do that if there are no consequences for not doing it.



posted on Jul, 30 2018 @ 08:24 PM
link   
Does Iran have a Globally Connected Central Bank yet ?
Iraq and Afghanistan did not.
They do now .
North Korea does not.
Syria didn't (don't know about now)
Pattern ?



posted on Jul, 30 2018 @ 08:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gothmog
Does Iran have a Globally Connected Central Bank yet ?
Iraq and Afghanistan did not.
They do now .
North Korea does not.
Syria didn't (don't know about now)
Pattern ?


That would be a great theory if those were the only places that have seen war in the last 20 years. They're not.



posted on Jul, 30 2018 @ 08:34 PM
link   
a reply to: haman10

Sorry for your up bringing that khomenie clown did a number on Iran which used to be jewel of Mid East. But us has no plans to attack Iran unless they do something really stupid like attack United states.



posted on Jul, 30 2018 @ 08:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Gothmog
Does Iran have a Globally Connected Central Bank yet ?
Iraq and Afghanistan did not.
They do now .
North Korea does not.
Syria didn't (don't know about now)
Pattern ?


That would be a great theory if those were the only places that have seen war in the last 20 years. They're not.

Check out the wars in the past 40 years...or more.
Go way back in time.
Don't just speak.
Look....
Research....
Know...
And knowing is half the battle.



posted on Jul, 30 2018 @ 08:57 PM
link   
a reply to: haman10



Not a big fan of war myself.

That being said. . . .




posted on Jul, 30 2018 @ 09:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Gothmog
Does Iran have a Globally Connected Central Bank yet ?
Iraq and Afghanistan did not.
They do now .
North Korea does not.
Syria didn't (don't know about now)
Pattern ?


That would be a great theory if those were the only places that have seen war in the last 20 years. They're not.

Check out the wars in the past 40 years...or more.
Go way back in time.
Don't just speak.
Look....
Research....
Know...
And knowing is half the battle.


I already know that the idea that there's some pattern of wars happening in places that don't have a link to the global banking system like that's some kind of conspiracy is rubbish because wars happen in places that do have global banking links too. Wars happen all the time, by sheer statistics they would have to happen in some places that don't have that now and then.

I could point to numerous conflicts in Africa and go "Oh this one happened in a country that's predominantly black. And this one too, and this one too. Pattern?"

What's the implication? That wars only happen in predominantly black countries? Maybe if you're looking at those wars in a vacuum and ignoring other wars that don't fit your silly theory.



posted on Jul, 30 2018 @ 10:03 PM
link   
a reply to: haman10

Just curious, do you agree with any of this below?

“The United States is Iran's number one enemy" -Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei-

Members of Iran’s parliament set fire to a U.S. flag and chant “death to America” after President Trump pulled out of the Iran nuclear deal.


Iran Foreign Minister the supposed “moderate” chants death to America





The majority of Muslims in the United States think sharia law supersedes the U.S. constitution.



posted on Jul, 30 2018 @ 10:11 PM
link   
The truth is a major war on Iran has long been in the works and many of the other recent ones have been mere stepping stones to the war against Iran...
It is coming it's just a matter of time and just enough public opinion in agreement for it...
And it will be the mother of all wars only in comparison of the more recent struggles... Only because Iran will get spanked alot harder...
Also we will most likely see some black projects made public whenever it does happen...
edit on 30-7-2018 by 5StarOracle because: Word



posted on Jul, 30 2018 @ 10:33 PM
link   
If we were stupid enough to elect a brain damaged libtard like Hillary Clinton we would be at war with Russia right now. It’s funny how liberals try to demonize Trump as if he is some warmongering dictator just because he believes in borders, rule of law and American Exceptionalism. Trump doesn’t want war, he wants to do what’s best for America.



posted on Jul, 31 2018 @ 12:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: FreeDeplorable
If we were stupid enough to elect a brain damaged libtard like Hillary Clinton we would be at war with Russia right now. It’s funny how liberals try to demonize Trump as if he is some warmongering dictator just because he believes in borders, rule of law and American Exceptionalism. Trump doesn’t want war, he wants to do what’s best for America.


He wants to do what's best for America?

Really? Where is the evidence for that? "Make America Great Again" doesn't mean what Agent Orange thinks it means. To be great, the people unquestionably come first. Our citizens should always come first - we are the ones who pay for our country. Without us and our money, there is no government.

To be great, we should be united, not driven apart on a daily basis. Everyone should have food, and shelter, and HEALTH CARE. Everyone should be able to access treatment for mental illness, and a good affordable education. The homeless should be assessed on an individual basis to determine what their needs are to get them back on their feet, whether it be medical care, mental health care, or drug/alcohol related issues. Their needs should be provided for, until they are once again up and at 'em.

Not everyone can seek higher education at universities, but they should have access to training programs, and trades, and only pay a reasonable amount of money for them, and then earn enough to have a decent lifestyle.

We should strive to continue to be a world leader, and rather than constantly chastising our ally's, we should be making more. Not holding secret meetings with our adversaries and making "deals" the citizens are not allowed to even know about. WTH is up with that? Does that not trouble you in the least?

Did you know if Putin had not told the Russian people that his meeting with Trump was 2 hrs. and 14 mins. we wouldn't even know that much? There is no veil of secrecy, this is a WALL of secrecy which I find quite disturbing, particularly in view of trump's apparent acquiescence and submission to Putin.

And as far as "exceptionalism"? Give me a break. The only exceptionalism we are experiencing is seeing how quickly we can plummet, and it almost appears by design from day one.

Until he seriously demonstrates concerns and actions such as these, no, he is certainly NOT doing what's best for America, and he is most definitely not making us great. He is 'ruling' by fear. The only people in Congress who will stand up against him are those who know they are leaving. The others are scared #less they will be ruined if they stand up against him, because he's so vindictive.

/rant



posted on Jul, 31 2018 @ 01:09 AM
link   
They are the world's largest state sponsor
Of terrism, the took over our embassy and hos6ages, captured american servicemen, killed us soldiers in iraq... shall I go on ? Even after all that you still think we won't fuk their # up if they try anything like that with trump instead of a bitch like sorteo???



posted on Jul, 31 2018 @ 01:27 AM
link   
Very simply put...DONT TRUST THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT

Look at its history of wars and violence, backstabbing and double dealings.

“We come in peace. Shoot to kill Jim!”

What cracks me about this is?

All I keep seeing on this site is about Trump and people crying about Putin supposedly interfering with American politics....lfmao!

That’s all the American government, past and present, has been doing for years🤔.

Well come to America! The silent Forth Riech!

Don’t trust the Government! 🤨



posted on Jul, 31 2018 @ 01:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: 35Foxtrot

originally posted by: haman10
We had 2 separate threads regarding this issue recently, which i just came across:

thread 1 and thread 2

.... please stick to your own problems and let us solve our own...

....let us stick to our own lives and not meddle in each other's affairs, lets stop killing...



Just as soon as you (Iran) stop sponsoring terror organizations, I'm sure I'd be more inclined to leave you be.

And, BTW, I've seen war. In multiple deployments to seemingly every craphole country. War with your country would not be the mother of anything. Saddam fought you to a standstill and how long did it take us to seize Baghdad?


Sponsoring terror?

You're telling him to stop sponsoring terror, and you're American?

Dude. Read a book.



posted on Jul, 31 2018 @ 02:17 AM
link   
a reply to: intrepid

1979?

I see that and raise you 1953 Coup......TPAJAX project / Operation boot.



posted on Jul, 31 2018 @ 02:41 AM
link   
Unfortunately as bad as war is, sanctions itself, is not a picnic. With sanctions on Iraq, curtailing baby food, aimed specifically to kill baby children. And if that wasn't enough, US bombed Iraq's last powered milk factory, claiming it was making WMD. Then bombed water filtration plants to cause disease. And sanctioned drugs to fight disease. All planned.

So sanctions is war.

The enemy isn't Iran but pro western government's that are working together to destroy the sovereign rights of all countries that don't submit to western style globalisation. Which might be headed by globalist in the UK.

Only a united people can fight the tyranny. A tyranny against freedom of all people.



posted on Jul, 31 2018 @ 03:04 AM
link   
In the end war happens because someone makes money from it. End of story. Greed sustains the war machine.



posted on Jul, 31 2018 @ 03:30 AM
link   
a reply to: haman10

The US will not attack Iran unless they attack shipping in the gulf. Reality is sanctions are a better options. The regime will fall apart without a shot being fired. And it will also make it hard for them to support their terrorist network. If they need to destroy a facility in Iran the Israelis would do it. If it involves attacking their terrorist networks Saudis will take care of it.

The only way the US will get directly involved is if they started attacking tankers. As far as it being a war no Iran doesn't have the ability to fight for more than a couple of weeks.



posted on Jul, 31 2018 @ 03:39 AM
link   
a reply to: intrepid

I specifically addressed this "death to America" slogan a long time ago in this thread

Several points seemed to be a concern to many members here:

1- the "death to America" slogan which i really wish they take some time and read my post above because that will most probably answer some of their questions.

2- Iran's support for militant groups , its a little bit of hypocrisy to take off MKO (mujahidin khalgh terrorist group of Iran) from the black-list and consider hezbollah a terrorist group, isnt it? MKO has killed more than 17,000 innocent Iranians as an extremist Marxist-Islamist terrorist group but it now enjoys wide-spread support from US govt.

Here

Hezbollah of Lebanon is not a "group", its a vast organization with millions of members and owns an overwhelming number of seats in Lebanese democratic parliament. its a democratic organization to people's surprise whose main objective is to secure Lebanese interests and if needs be, its "territorial integrity". it does NOT behead or crucify people like MKO does. it only protects their people from harm's way, but how dare they? how dare they protect themselves from Israel? No need to mention that military wing of Hezbollah is probably its smallest wing.

3- Iranian nuclear program , that issue was addressed in a binding TREATY with world states, but US being above the international law, threw it all away (despite the order of ICJ -International court of justice- to immediately curb all sanctions). Secondly even if Iran WAS after nuclear weapons which she is not, What gives US the right to HAVE and USE them but prevents Iran from having them in deterrence?



new topics

top topics



 
59
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join