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.

 

Iran Can Win a War Against the U.S. with Help From Syria & the DPRK

page: 7
0
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 05:45 PM
link   

I hate to break up your little dreamworld or whatever the hell it is your living in kwints but it wasnt the americans that won that war, it was the brits, america just came in at the last minute and cleaned up the mess.


This is one I rarely here. The Brits won it, huh? You would have lost in North Africa if it hadn't been for America's help (it could have been achieved a lot faster if they weren't glory hogs, too). We were the ones who actually plowed through Europe. We were the ones who took the hardest beaches on D-Day. We did the majority of the fighting in the Pacific.


In the long run all war does is waste money.


Wars have been conducted throughout history because of economic gain.


So you think america can have allies from halfway across the world but its impossible for any middle eastern countries a few hundred miles away from each other form an alliance?


America has troops in most of the nation's in the world. We can strike anywhere the world at almost any time. We have a navy that can move about the world. We have global reach. Iran, Syria, and North Korea are isolated nations. They share no borders. Iran and Syria are more rivals then friends. None of these nations have many resources at their disposal.


Alot more than any military attack from a country with a weaker military


No it won't. A guerilla war will merely take off a few soldiers here and there, like with Iraq. It's no threat to the American military.


I dont think you could be more wrong on that, surprise is a geurilla tactic, for every 1 geurilla that dies if hes lucky he can take down at least 2 americans.


That hasn't happened in either Iraq or Vietnam (and Vietnam has a long history of highly successful guerilla warfare, and had actually experience). Why would Iran be able to do that? We've killed far more then we've lost in both nations.


Well if you think thats ever gonna happen all i can say is keep dreamin.


It already has happened. Remember the Gulf War? How about Kosovo? How about the entire Cold War?


I couldnt agree with you more, in my opinion every iraqi extremist is worth 3 american soldiers mentally.


Physically it doesn't seem they're even 1/30th of our guys, though, since over 30,000 of them have been killed or detained.

Oops

No it couldn't. Soldiers are people first. I think my aunt should be able to have kids and am damn glad my grandfathers had their children too.


You keep thinking that. A military needs extreme discipline, and allowing our soldiers to have families takes away from that.




posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 05:56 PM
link   
First: why the proposed war is almost ridiculous even to consider.

North Korea can not iniate hostilities without China's permission. To do so would invite American retaliation on China's doorstep and would not be by any means proftiable for China. For a weak nation like North Korea to defy their protectors in China would be a slap in the face demanding retribution. Therefore, we can be confident that North Korea will not invade South Korea until after American forces are completely committed elsewhere, and even at this point there is no ensurance that China will allow such a move unless they believe America will be soundly defeated.

Iran is geographically protected from any possibility of an American first strike unless either Turkey, Pakistan, or Saudi Arabia and Egypt together give their blessing and grant use of their territory and airspace for such a war. For this reason, the most likely (and only truly feasible) reason for Iran to attack America in Iraq would be if America initiated or prepared to initiate hostilities against Syria with the cooperation of Turkey (without which such a war would be virtually impossible apart from the unacceptible option of using Israeli territory to launch the offensive).

So the only way this war even becomes possible is if the UN supports an American attack on Syria. Short of this Turkey can not support an American war effort on Syria because it would be detremental to their aspirations to EU membership, and without Tukish support the war is far too strategically and politically dangerous to undertake.


How the war must be conducted and why it is likely to fail:
If the situation necessary for provoking a joint Syrian-Iranian attack into Iran exist, it means that America has already begun recon for attacks and has begun mobilizing, and that Turkey has agreed to support the war effort by letting US forces pass through their territory. It also would mean that America knows war is comming and has taken the appropriate measure of removing naval forces from harms way in the Persian Gulf.

The goal of the enemy coalition will be twofold:
1. To defend along the Turkish border and possibly make incursions into Turkey before American forces are built up there for an invasion.
2. To Over-run Iraq and all forces there as a means of weakening the attack on Syria, because Syria is the key to American access to Iran.

The key to overruning Iraq will be for Iranian forces to cross the Tigris river so that they may engage and overwhelm US forces by superior numbers. In order to do this a major crossing must be secured. Mosul is the best target because Syria can reach it from the West to support the Iranian effort.
The enemy must
1. Organize and assemble his forces for the invasion, during which time his movements will be detected and America will begin stepping up its mobilization as well as preparing target packages to stall the enemy advance in case they should attack.
2. Move his forces over 300 miles, through unfavorable terrain in Iran's case, out in the open, with America having seen their preparations and prepared targeting plans designed to stop their advance, under termendous air bombardment. An army on the road suffers far more extensive damage from air attacks than an entrenched one. The Iraqi retreat from Kuwait comes to mind.
3. Make opposed river crossings and route American forces out of an urban environment.
4. Defeat superior American firepower in a constricted battle area (between the rivers Tigris and Euphrates) where it will not be possible for superior numbers to be employed as efficiently as in the open.

If the enemy fails to do this in a timely manner, Syria is a sitting duck and will go down exactly as Iraq has twice before, and exactly as Israel dealt to Syria in the Six Days War. This would also signal the relief of any threat against America's hold on Iraq, and would ultimately pave the way for an American counter attack against the Iranian army, which would now be isolated. The life of this glorious Arab uprising, form conception to abortion, would be 6-12 months.

The exclusion of North Korea: America's interest in the Koreas is purely ideological. South Korea is not nearly as strategically or economically important as the middle east. If North Korea took an aggressive stance while America had bigger thigns going on, there are several possibilities:
1. China might organize a coup in North Korea or otherwise subvert that nation to prevent the possibility of later American reactions.
2. Japan and Australia may join the defense of South Korea and defeat the North Koreans in a conventional war.
3. We may just let them have South Korea and let it be their Vietnam. South Korean resistance to North Korean occupation could quickly spread to North Korea and lead to the fall of that government, especially once Northern Armies get down South and find out that everything they've been told about American activity in the South is a lie.


On what it would take for Iran to really win a war with America: A few hundred billion dollars worth of hardware and exercises as well as several years.
In order to be a threat, Iran must develop modern equipment and training standards in almost every part of its military.
Most noteably they will need:
1. To upgrade the targeting abilities of their T-72s and acquire a substantial number of BMP-3s or equivalent IFVs to round out their mechanized forces. They'll want at least a couple thousand of these (and a considerable number of upgraded T-72s) if they honestly plan to slug it out with the USA in the Iraqi and Syrian deserts.
2. To acquire enough modern air defenses to provide redundant coverage of the entire theater of battle, and suppliment this with a large force of modern aircraft manned by extremely well trained pilots. I wouldn't recommend anything less than several hundred Su-30s. Although there is virtually no realistic hope of gaining air superiority, a strong and redundant air defense is absolutely necessary to restrict enemy abilities to attack advancing ground forces.
3. To develop an extensive intelligence service without being detected, aimed at placing military weapons on civilian craft around the world in huge numbers for the purpose of executing General Van Riper style ambushes on American forces enroute to conflicts on the sea.


Last but not least, on Iran's true capabilities at present: Iran could cripple most mid east oil production with missile strikes and cause a few hundred casualties in Iraq with missile strikes as well, and possibly help terrorists reach America with military grade weapons. This would be extremely unpleasant for America but would not serve Iranian interests or anyone elses. That would be more like the plot of a James Bond movie, where some psycho wants to blow up the world just because he's insane.



posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 11:58 AM
link   

This is one I rarely here. The Brits won it, huh? You would have lost in North Africa if it hadn't been for America's help (it could have been achieved a lot faster if they weren't glory hogs, too).

First of all im not british and second of all what the hells north africa got to do with WW2?


We were the ones who actually plowed through Europe. We were the ones who took the hardest beaches on D-Day. We did the majority of the fighting in the Pacific.

Yea i agree with you on all that but the only reason the americans could plough through europe was cuz by then the nazis already had their hands full with the brits and the russians, Americans came in at the last minute and finished the nazis off. I think its sad that lots of americans think that they won WW2 but anyone with a brain in their skull knows it was the brits that fought from the start and didnt back down even once unlike france.


Wars have been conducted throughout history because of economic gain.

Think about it, war might gain your country a bit of money for the time being but hows it contributing in the long run? All war does is destroy buildings which have to be rebuilt and waste money on weapons, amunition, tanks, planes etc. The only way it even slightly helps any economy is the fact that lots of people die and it reduces the population but it still wastes a thousand times as much money as it makes, when will U.S.A. stop being a bunch of retards and help the world rather than fukkin it up, either way they dont have much of a choice, they either stop their bullshet or theyre gonna be stopped, i know america can never be invaded and its pretty much invincible in that sense, but in my opinion pretty soon theyre gonna regret having invaded the countries they did and every U.S soldiers in the middle east is gonna be gunned down or beheaded, american soldiers might have superior weapons, armor, training, technology, more money but theyre fukkin with the whole middle east now.


America has troops in most of the nation's in the world. We can strike anywhere the world at almost any time. We have a navy that can move about the world. We have global reach. Iran, Syria, and North Korea are isolated nations. They share no borders. Iran and Syria are more rivals then friends. None of these nations have many resources at their disposal.

I think your overestimating the U.S army and underestimating their enemies, they might have global reach but theres no way they can attack any place at any time, for example do you think they would have a chance of attacking Moscow tomorrow?


That hasn't happened in either Iraq or Vietnam (and Vietnam has a long history of highly successful guerilla warfare, and had actually experience). Why would Iran be able to do that? We've killed far more then we've lost in both nations.

In america you only hear about U.S success not failure, you have no idea how effective enemy geurilla tactics were in the past, your understimating geurilla tactics and if any U.S enemies resort to geurilla tactics your gonna be surprised how much of a fight they put up.


It already has happened. Remember the Gulf War? How about Kosovo? How about the entire Cold War?

Yea i remember the Gulf War, Kosovo and the Cold War, if you think the whole world was on americas side back then, your obviously brainwashed.


Physically it doesn't seem they're even 1/30th of our guys, though, since over 30,000 of them have been killed or detained.

Due to the fact they didnt have half the guns, half the food, half the technology and half the money, its kinda understandible. If it was the other way around and Iraq had the unfair advantage U.S soldiers woulda been massacred.


You keep thinking that. A military needs extreme discipline, and allowing our soldiers to have families takes away from that.

I know what you mean by that, an ideal soldier is on with nothing to lose.



posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by fishbrain

First of all im not british and second of all what the hells north africa got to do with WW2?


North Africa and the Middle East have everything to do with WW2, that's how the U.K. got the mandate to control Iraq and set the course of many wars to come... but that's off topic.



posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 01:31 PM
link   
Just something... if USA go to war with Iran, Syria and North Korea, surely that there will be new countries against USA maybe Russia with the recents declerations of Putin and others countries... And the since the Iraq war, the US have just few allies that will fight if they are attacked. And where the US oil will come from? From the Iraq? I don't think so.... from the Iran... no.. from Saudi Arabia ? I don't think so either because Iran and Syria will buy oil from them.



posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo
Just something... if USA go to war with Iran, Syria and North Korea, surely that there will be new countries against USA maybe Russia with the recents declerations of Putin and others countries...


Why would Russia go to war with the US? Think about it - what is in it for them?

If you were the leader of Russia, would you risk all out nuclear war - which is almost assured to happen in a Russian/American war - to help North Korea, Iran, or Syria?

Do you think Putin would risk 150+ million Russians over those countries?

I highly doubt it. They may back them with arms, but they would not become directly involved.



And the since the Iraq war, the US have just few allies that will fight if they are attacked.


You must be kidding. If the US were attacked, all of NATO would respond - not that it would matter - the US could take Iran, Syria, and North Korea on it's own.




And where the US oil will come from? From the Iraq? I don't think so.... from the Iran... no.. from Saudi Arabia ? I don't think so either because Iran and Syria will buy oil from them.


Yes - Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and everyone else. The US is the worlds largest consumer of oil. You don't not sell to your biggest customer


Bottom line is, this idea is bad for Syria, North Korea and Iran, and very good for the US.

If they all attack, there will be no way to put political pressure on the US by other countries such as France and Russia. Not only that, but all of the US allies would have to get involved because of their mutual protection pacts.

Please, by all means, if these 3 nations do this it would just give the US more political ammo, and the excuse it needs to clean house.



posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 02:39 PM
link   
There reason is because U.S.A. is going in to steal oil for Jews In Palistine=(JIP) and to make Arabs PRO-Isreal through "Democracy" the same reason they went in to Iraq. all of the official reasons why they went into Iraq and why they want to go into Syria and Iran are nothing but lies for the public to consume



posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 03:19 PM
link   
Some people keep comparing the world as it was in the past and not seeing the realties of the present. At the time of the WWII, we the US had enourmouse industrial potential as well as capablity. This capablity became white hot during the War years, we produced some 100,000 planes and 24 Aircraft Carrier. Each of these feats were unprecedented in world.
But now, China is the factory floor of the world and the US depends more and more on the world for it manufactured goods. Specifically, many components for its advance weapons come from other places. In a interconected world, it will be difficult to conduct large wars.
Need I remind everyone just how much more expensive it is to fight a war these days. My head spins at the cost of the Pacific Campaign were fought now. I don't think there is enough money in the world two fight two large scale modern high tech wars at the same, the size and scope of WWII campaigns. Safe to say that George Bush better recongnize when his eyes are bigger than his stomach



posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 07:34 PM
link   
This is a bunch of bull american propaganda. Americans avoided both world wars, they came in when THEY were affected. They don't fight for freedom. I'm canadian, believe me you know who fights for freedom when you look at british, australian and canadian involvement in peace operations all around the world. The United States represses others to give freedom to their own.

I'd like to see one real argument proving me wrong that the United States went into WWI and WWII for real freedom reasons. Canada and Austrailia joined both wars within a WEEK of declaration of war, we were in it for the full 6 years. The americans don't care about other people, not even each other in their own country. Prove me wrong if you like. I'd like to see a valid argument.



posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 08:49 PM
link   
fishbrain

First of all im not british and second of all what the hells north africa got to do with WW2?


You know, I can't get past this statement. Anyone who would ask this question has no right talking about WW2, or any history for that matter, or even current events. Go educate yourself, and then come back.

Siberiantiger
Your post was great. I actually got a little laugh out of it. Easily more entertaining then fisbhbrain.

Harry12

But now, China is the factory floor of the world and the US depends more and more on the world for it manufactured goods. Specifically, many components for its advance weapons come from other places. In a interconected world, it will be difficult to conduct large wars.
Need I remind everyone just how much more expensive it is to fight a war these days. My head spins at the cost of the Pacific Campaign were fought now. I don't think there is enough money in the world two fight two large scale modern high tech wars at the same, the size and scope of WWII campaigns. Safe to say that George Bush better recongnize when his eyes are bigger than his stomach


Ok, besides a few components which come from Europe, our equipment is not produced in other nations.

Also, America may not be the top manufacturer in the world, but our production capabilities are still massive, behind probably just China, and the EU. It's easily enough to repeat what we did during WW2. Our economy sees rapid industrial growth, we just happen to see more growth elsewhere.

Truemana

I'm canadian, believe me you know who fights for freedom when you look at british, australian and canadian involvement in peace operations all around the world


Not like us evil Americans, who give more aid in terms of dollars, as well as food to developing nations than pretty much everyone else combined...

And our troops have been involved in just as many peacekeeping missions as anyone elses.


The United States represses others to give freedom to their own.


Not like you Canadians, and British, and Australians, who have been right alongside with us since the end of WW2...


I'd like to see one real argument proving me wrong that the United States went into WWI and WWII for real freedom reasons.


Our government was dying for a chance to get involved in both wars. We happened to have a policy of isolation at the time. We could not enter the war. You are right, though, most Americans were against it for obvious reasons. Why should we go die for the pointless wars of Europeans? It makes little sense.

Canadians and Australians didn't go fight because of some belief in freedom, either. You went because you were pretty much obligated to go help the British.


The americans don't care about other people, not even each other in their own country. Prove me wrong if you like. I'd like to see a valid argument.


This is easy to prove wrong. Americans give more charity than anyone else.



posted on Mar, 14 2005 @ 05:49 PM
link   
haven't read the entire thread...so i guess am responsing to the headline.
don't talk about it, do it. if your gonna talk bs, back it up or stfu, thank you



posted on Mar, 14 2005 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by HardCore American
haven't read the entire thread...so i guess am responsing to the headline.
don't talk about it, do it. if your gonna talk bs, back it up or stfu, thank you


HAHA LOL what the hell are you talking about? How can you write something like that if you haven't read the whole thread? This is a discussion about the potential possibilities of the 'topic headline' thanks for chiming in!



posted on Mar, 14 2005 @ 09:54 PM
link   
Vagabond, thanks for the only insightful analysis of the subject on this thread. I'm tempted to characterize the nature of most of the other posts, but I already took a 250 point hit from the "mods" for pointing out the obvious.
We are at war with Iran, they are sending martyrs into Iraq, Afganistan, and other countries as we speak. It is low-intensity, as to not provoke a major response, but the Mullahs are dependant on struggle with the U.S.



posted on Mar, 14 2005 @ 10:29 PM
link   
Thanks for the kind words. It's a shame that I've apparently gotten here too late. By the time I showed up this thread was already a big pissing match over who won WWII.

(The answer to that question, by the way, is "The Allies". America provided a great deal of hardware, as well as manpower for the coup de gras, but this might not have been enough if it weren't for Russia opening the Eastern Front. Of course Russia couldn't have lasted long enough to do that, nor could America have ever helped, if the British hadn't kept the Germans busy in North Africa, not to mention the fact that the British threat required German troops airpower, ordinance, and troops to be dedicated to the Battle of Britain and the protection of the Low Countries and France. If any of the three unoccupied allied powers had left the war things would have been much much more difficult on the others. Also this is certainly not to completely write off the importance of other allies, particularly Australia and Canada.) Yeah, America was late and looking back on it we're not proud of that, sorry. Parly kidding, but tell the French that's how we felt when they took their time helping with our revolution
.



posted on Mar, 14 2005 @ 10:32 PM
link   
We might be tempted to charachterize the nature of all of your posts too Realist05 but we don't need to now do we...we all can see them clear enough.

The relationship of the mullahs and their dependancy on the U.S. is quite humorous. You wouldn't care to substantiate your claim would you? I doub it because it is mere speculation and opinion. I'd love to see some evidence though.

As for our current 'state of war' with Iran I would assume we do but then again I assume we have a state of war with every nation. Managing a country especially a superpower is no easy task. One must spy on and constantly evaluate even your allies loyalties and actions abroad.

When the march on Iran begins, this will be the start of not a new war but the opening act of a new 'theatre' of war. As of now we are just 'setting the stage'.



posted on Mar, 14 2005 @ 11:09 PM
link   
Yeah, we bled the Reds red, that was Churchill and the "committee of 19"'s decision, a lot of the WW2 endgame was being ready to face Stalin without Hitler and Tojo doing it for us. English statecraft trumped Harry Hopkins and F.D.R.'s limited grasp on how the real world worked back then.

As for today, the U.S. as "#1 enemy" works to legitimize the tyranny of the Mullahs, Assad, Castro, Chavaz, Mubarik, Chicoms and any number of dictators seeking to unite thier people in opposition to a foreign threat instead of exploring the idea that they could actually make choices on how they live thier own lives.



posted on Mar, 15 2005 @ 12:08 AM
link   
Ahaha


Funny how Chavez is always mentioned by you right-wing bu#es. (I could be wrong, you could be a right-wing texas democrat, but theres hardly any left thanks to re-distribution :lol


He was elected by his people twice and you tried to install an undemocratic dictatorship in Venezuela.

Talk about double standards.



posted on Mar, 15 2005 @ 03:07 AM
link   
I'm really not sure Chavez belongs in that list at all. He's more than just a bit left of the rest of the Socialist Democracies forming in South America, but he's still pretty soundly in his people's corner. Chavez will become either a good guy or a bad guy in large part based on how he is treated by the rest of the world. If we make a pariah out of his nation, they will of course become a rogue state. If we try to engage him and compromise with him on terms which favor the Venezuelan people as much as American corporations, then I believe that we can wrestle him away from the influence of BRICS and closer to the middle.

The black and white view of politics is fallacious. Chavez will do what seems best for Venezuela in his judgement, and the shade of grey that takes on will be in part determined by the shade of grey that other nations cast upon him by their dealings with him. Everyone is acting in self interest, but if we don't temper that with some concern for not screwing other people over (simply because screwing them over begets problems which naturally return to us in one form or another), the state of things will naturally go much closer towards the "black" end of the spectrum.



posted on Mar, 15 2005 @ 03:15 AM
link   

Chavez will become either a good guy or a bad guy in large part based on how he is treated by the rest of the world. If we make a pariah out of his nation, they will of course become a rogue state. If we try to engage him and compromise with him on terms which favor the Venezuelan people as much as American corporations, then I believe that we can wrestle him away from the influence of BRICS and closer to the middle.


The American outlook is pretty simple here. Why should we compromise at all with Chavez, when we could simply get rid of him?

As for the people being for him...That's kind of hard to say. The people do not have to be behind you to really win an election. I'm willing to bet more then half this country really hates Bush, and would have taken Kerry. They just don't go out to vote. I believe it was something like 10% of people under 25 showed up to vote.

From what I understand, Chavez only received something like a third of the votes, anyway. Clearly many did not care for Chavez.

All of that aside, whatever hypocracy America shows really doesn't matter, and the rest of the world needs to realize that. We have a very interesting place in this world, where we allow far weaker nations to pretend they have equal say to us. No other power in history has existed like America.

This world isn't ruled by rhetoric no matter how much non-Americans wish it was. As long as we have the force to back us up, we can be as hypocritical as we want.



posted on Mar, 15 2005 @ 04:01 AM
link   
Wow...

That's actually quite a honest response.

Even i must commend you on that.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join