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.

 

Is Iran Strong Enough to Go to War with the U.S.?

page: 9
8
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2019 @ 06:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: Bloodworth




What about the thousands in the streets that chant death to America. What about Iran's stance in gays? What about Iran's stance on womens rights? What about Iran's stande on religious freedom?


wiki


The constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran recognizes Islam, Christianity, Judaism, and Zoroastrianism as official religions. Article 13 of the Iranian Constitution, recognizes them as People of the Book and they are granted the right to exercise religious freedom in Iran.




What about the USA ?

Abortion rights wound back.
www.bbc.com...







That's right....no more murdering kids to ease a conscience....no more free LOOSH...no more human sacrifice in the name of self-service.Get used to it.....Canada is slow to catch up but is right behind Trump....wait for it.




posted on Jun, 28 2019 @ 06:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Bloodworth

I'm not defending Iran....I'm pointing out the hypocrisy and double standards of those who are advocating war with Iran.

As for 'pissing off American's' - tough, live with it, and it certainly doesn't justify killing millions of people.



posted on Jun, 28 2019 @ 07:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Freeborn

I don't know of anyone who wants war with Iran. I think everyone would like Iran to just stop working towards nuclear weapons and then have free and fair elections.



posted on Jun, 28 2019 @ 07:47 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Re-read this thread....there's plenty of people wanting war with Iran.

As for free elections; hasn't Iraq taught us anything?
That is entirely a matter for the Iranian people.



posted on Jun, 28 2019 @ 07:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Re-read this thread....there's plenty of people wanting war with Iran.

As for free elections; hasn't Iraq taught us anything?
That is entirely a matter for the Iranian people.



I didn't say forced elections, I said free elections. I don't see what you are saying, can you show me the people demanding an Iraq style war with Iran?



posted on Jun, 28 2019 @ 07:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: Bloodworth

Never mind the casualties....

Yeah America had such a high moral ground that soon into the Iraq war they stopped showing the coffins returning to the US.

Wars good for business. Never mind the human suffering.


en.wikipedia.org...


Mental illness and suicide

A top U.S. Army psychiatrist, Colonel Charles Hoge, said in March 2008 that nearly 30% of troops on their third deployment suffered from serious mental-health problems, and that one year was not enough time between combat tours.[116]

A March 12, 2007, Time article[117] reported on a study published in the Archives of Internal Medicine. About one third of the 103,788 veterans returning from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars seen at U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs facilities between September 30, 2001, and September 30, 2005, were diagnosed with mental illness or a psycho-social disorder, such as homelessness and marital problems, including domestic violence. More than half of those diagnosed, 56 percent, were suffering from more than one disorder. The most common combination was post-traumatic stress disorder and depression.


Sadly it's what humans have been doing since day 1.
And if your civilization doesnt evolve fast enough they are obliterated .

You should read what the persians would do to civilizations who were weaker...you should read about ghengis Khan.

Everything about those weaker civilizations was completley demolished.



posted on Jun, 28 2019 @ 08:56 AM
link   
a reply to: FredT

Fred.In a proper war you do not try to nation build after. Just leave.



posted on Jun, 28 2019 @ 11:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: F4guy

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: F4guy

originally posted by: Xeven
After 72 hours it will be a Turkey shoot. US has no need for ground Invasion, which would be nasty. Only need to bomb them to Stone Age.


I seem to remember those same "bomb them back to the Stone Age" words being used by Curtis Lemay in reference to the Vietnam War. I should remember since I did some of the bombing. We dropped almost 8 million tons (tons!) of bombs in that conflict. And North Vietnam won that war. Rolling Thunder and the various Linebacker operations were suppose to quickly end the conflict.



Then you should remember that there were senseless restrictions on where we were allowed to bomb that prevented the operations from having the major political impact that is needed to actually win wars. You can bomb their airfields 30 times over the course of 10 years but if you're not allowed to attack their capital what exactly are you gonna achieve? For much of the war Hanoi was largely off-limits to bombing raids. There were some exceptions but we were never allowed to do the extensive attacks like we did on Berlin in WW2. They were able to sit up there and simply outlast us until there was so little support for the war in America we had to withdraw, a political decision. It was only a military failure in the sense that the political leaders hamstrung the military from doing what we needed to do to win.


That is not altogether factual.During Rolling Thunder we were prohibited from bombing within 30 nautical miles of Hanoi and within 10 nm of Haiphong. There was also a 30 nm buffer along the entire Chinese border. By April, 1972, those restrictions were dropped and we flew a 100 aircraft raid against Hanoi and Haiphong. By December of that year, our primary targets were Hanoi and Haiphong during Linebacker II. Linebacker II was so successful that toward the end we had trouble finding anything to bomb. Rail yards, power plants, bridges, POL storage areas, and other strategic targets were utterly destroyed.


Yeah, which is why I didn't say they were banned from bombing Hanoi. There were exceptions, mostly towards the end of the war when it was too late to mean anything. That was a major political hamstring on the military. There's no telling how the war would've went if the military hadn't had one hand tied behind their back from day one.

It's not up for debate that the war was politically botched. This is pretty much unanimously agreed upon by historians.



posted on Jun, 28 2019 @ 11:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Re-read this thread....there's plenty of people wanting war with Iran.

As for free elections; hasn't Iraq taught us anything?
That is entirely a matter for the Iranian people.



I didn't say forced elections, I said free elections. I don't see what you are saying, can you show me the people demanding an Iraq style war with Iran?


No they can't. This is the narrative they've been told to whine about, except it's not happening. Very few people are advocating invading Iran, not even Bolton. Trump is on record saying we're not seeking to institute regime-change the way we did in Iraq.

They can't debate the actual facts of the issue so they have to make things up.



posted on Jun, 28 2019 @ 04:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bloodworth

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: Bloodworth

I could at least respect your opinion if you were consistent.

What about the Iranians chanting 'death to America'?
Is that a crime?
Does that warrant all out war?

As for the rest;
What about Saudi Arabia's stance on gays?
What about Saudi Arabia's stance on women's rights?
What about Saudi Arabia's stance on religious freedom?

Surely that too is a civilization so far behind as well.

Do you advocate a 'good dose of moabs' for them?

Plus just for good measure Saudi Arabia is by far the biggest sponsor and exporter of Islamic extremism and terrorism in the world.

Why don't we support nuking them and turning Saudi Arabia into a sheet of glass?



Saudia Arabia will get theirs one day....right now they are being used to buy weapons and kill as many in Yemen as possible.

So right now the Saudis are just playing their given role.

Constantly chanting death to America will get Americans pissed off.

Its almost shocking you have a defense for the Iranians....

Lines need to be drawn, sides need to be chosen. Let a clear winner emerge....



So I guess basically you support(ed) all those (just the recent) wars right? Iraq, Yemen, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria?

So lets start with Iraq, no good reason for that war (based on a lie of weapons of mass destruction). With Bush I the country was sanctioned badly where countless of people died because of that, 500.000 children, even medicines where sanctioned.


Iraq sanctions lead to half a million child deaths. Economic sanctions imposed on Iraq since the ending of the Gulf war have been responsible for the deaths of more than half a million children, according to a new study.9 dec. 1995

Let alone the poverty, food shortages/starvation and so on. Of course this way the people may get in favor of an intervention but in this case the reason they want(ed) that is because the US destroyed their economy.

Bush I destroyed most of their weapons but didn't go as far going after Saddam. Bush II again started a war on lie/ a good excuse, leveling most of the country with nobody knows how many exactly but probably around 1 million deaths and many more fleeing to mainly Europe. You didn't had people before this intervention blowing them self up, I guess many people where created who had nothing too loose and where easily willing blowing them self up taking many with them.
War against terrorists, look after that war how many terrorist came in existence. Even ISIS started there.

And today Iraq is still a big mess and with allot of sadness. Most kids don't even go to school today there and so on and so on.


This same playbook the US now tries with Iran. Cripple/destroy their economy in the hope the people since they will suffer badly, loosing their jobs&income and even may face starvation could start massive protests against their government. Not because their government is bad for them but because the killing sanctions (no money or even no food). Maybe not and they are willing to suffer and even die for their country but time will tell to be sure. But in my opinion this is what the US hopes, that people throw over their government (without boots on the ground).
Just let that sink in if that's the case, how more evil then that could exists?

For not making this reply too long I won't mention those other country's...

Anyways just those sanctions are a BIG crime, the US has no right for doing so. And just in the news as I said earlier, the US is now threatening the EU who want to stay in this Nuclear Treaty and promised Iran they can still do business with bypassing the US money system that those country's also will face sanctions most likely (before that they said only EU firms doing business in Iran would be sanctioned but now whole EU country's).

The US gonna sanctions the whole world now? not many on the list who they don't consider, why so... the whole world is becoming an enemy!?
Behaving like some mad dictator on world matters, you won't make many friends with that.. America first is becoming America ALONE.

The US got a big plan and are spending so much more then they really can, and with her previous actions lost all morals about what's right or bad, because they went in this road of EVIL which they preached them-self as a reason for those wars at any means, they got so far in the hellhole they don't even know even better anymore!

I'm not talking about the people in the US, people are people, not much different then anywhere else. Although a bit, and sure the media is war happy as well, and people are easily deceived. But those in power in the US are WICKED!
edit on 28-6-2019 by Pluginn because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2019 @ 05:04 PM
link   
a reply to: CanadianMason

Strong enough to ”engage" in confrontation. Weak and poorly trained enough to get obliterated trying to engage the USAF and USN.

It's a military conflict they would regret instantly.



posted on Jun, 28 2019 @ 09:23 PM
link   
a reply to: CanadianMason

For all those of you who seem to love the idea of war, any war:


If you are able,
save them a place
inside of you
and save one backward glance
when you are leaving
for the places they can
no longer go.

Be not ashamed to say
you loved them,
though you may
or may not have always.

Take what they have left
and what they have taught you
with their dying
and keep it with your own.

And in that time
when men decide and feel safe
to call the war insane,
take one moment to embrace
those gentle heroes
you left behind.

Major Michael Davis O'Donnell
1 January 1970
Dak To, Vietnam



posted on Jun, 28 2019 @ 11:06 PM
link   
a reply to: F4guy

Why the need to mischaracterize the other side? Can't you just discuss the facts of the issue? No one here loves the idea of war. If anything, some of us recognize that war is sometimes an unpleasant necessity of the nature of this imperfect world we live in. It's not all full of rainbows and unicorns. And very few people are actually advocating for war with Iran. The most many of us would like to see are some limited strikes.



posted on Jun, 29 2019 @ 02:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: Strate8
SA is soft and weak internally, big easy target.


I think your analysis about Saudi Arabia is off. The Sunni and the Shia denominations of Islam have been in sectarian conflict for hundreds of years. The animosity between Saudi Arabia (and most of the Muslim world) towards Iran is long-standing, and pre-dates even the United States. Almost all conflict in the Middle East, and subsequent deaths has been Sunni killing Shia killing Sunni.

If there is one thing that will solidify both Iran and Saudi Arabia it is a conflict between the two - as is aptly being demonstrated in Yemen.

Also, Saudi Arabia's military is somewhat better the Iran’s, especially given that any conflict won’t entail land armies because there are countries in the way. Sea and air, plus financial clout is with Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States. Iran know this, which is why they are chasing nuclear weapons.


I'm not off about SA at all. Spoiled, soft society. They contract everything out, including their war on Yemen they can't win. Most fighting against Yemen are contract mercs. That is a fact.

We contract over there for everything they are too stupid or lazy to do. US and other contractors even fix their AC, how lame is that??!

SA military is a high priced joke.



posted on Jun, 29 2019 @ 12:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Strate8

I'm not off about SA at all. Spoiled, soft society. They contract everything out, including their war on Yemen they can't win. Most fighting against Yemen are contract mercs. That is a fact.

We contract over there for everything they are too stupid or lazy to do. US and other contractors even fix their AC, how lame is that??!

SA military is a high priced joke.


SPOT ON! They cannot even handle the Houthi rebels. Lavishly equipped? Yes, well trained? Maybe, but beyond that in a force on force battle, Saudi vs. Iran, Ill go with the Persians

The experience of the Saudi's in Yemen shows that no matter how brutal its impossible to defeat an insurgency with bombs away. You need boots on the ground, fight a war of attrition, and then Marshall Plan the whole place.

WWI they punished German et al. and that led to ---> Nazi Germany ---> Marshall Plan ---> relative peace
Afghanistan and DSII ---> No real plan ---> Taliban resurgence and ISIS
Yemen ---> Bombs away ---> ongoing insurgency that is spreading outside of Yemen



posted on Jun, 29 2019 @ 12:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Spacespider
I think US will be holding back in any scenario that would play out...
Iran would be melted away in a couple of days if US gave all they got, it would not be pretty.


Thing is, the US won't give it all we've got. At most we'd put 1/5 of total resources to the issue if it came to it. China and Russia are the main threats and we need to be prepared. This is all proxy escalation to see what we would do and plan ahead on their part.



posted on Jun, 29 2019 @ 02:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: Spacespider
I think US will be holding back in any scenario that would play out...
Iran would be melted away in a couple of days if US gave all they got, it would not be pretty.


Thing is, the US won't give it all we've got. At most we'd put 1/5 of total resources to the issue if it came to it. China and Russia are the main threats and we need to be prepared. This is all proxy escalation to see what we would do and plan ahead on their part.


Which has been the entire problem with wars like Vietnam and the Iraq invasion. We didn't go all in. In Iraq we finally went all in (not really, but became much more committed) with the Surge in 2007. It was working, until Obama came in and #ed it up and gave us ISIS.



posted on Jun, 29 2019 @ 03:45 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

Seriously? It was jacked up well before Obama came in and messed it up.

This is totally non partisan. EVERY US President since Truman has been a # show in terms of ME police.



posted on Jun, 29 2019 @ 03:46 PM
link   
a reply to: FredT




Afghanistan and DSII ---> No real plan --->


Plan was to seize poppy fields. Military escorts, drugs back to the US. Plan worked perfectly.

Oh sorry you were talking about extremists?

LOL



posted on Jun, 29 2019 @ 03:49 PM
link   
a reply to: FredT

It certainly was. The arab spring didn't help though.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join